State Ex Rel. Davis v. City of Pompano

• Decision Date: 11 December 1933
• Citation: State Ex Rel. Davis v. City of Pompano, 113 Fla. 246, 151 So. 485 (Fla. 1933)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DAVIS, Atty. Gen., et al. v. CITY OF POMPANO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

151 So. 485

113 Fla. 246

STATE ex rel. DAVIS, Atty. Gen., et al. v. CITY OF POMPANO.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

December 11, 1933

Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; G. W. Tedder, Judge.

Quo warranto proceeding by the State, on the relation of Fred H Davis, Attorney General, and another against the City of Pompano. To review an adverse judgment, relators bring error.

Reversed with directions.

COUNSEL

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and McCune, Hiaasen &amp Fleming, of Fort Lauderdale, for plaintiffs in error.

C. E. Farrington, of Fort Lauderdale, for defendant in error.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

This case is before us on writ of error to a judgment in quo warranto proceedings brought to contest the validity of chapter 13324, Special Acts of the Legislature of 1927.

It is needless for us to discuss the principles of law involved in this case, because, as it appears to us, they have all been settled adversely to the contentions of the defendant in error in the opinions and judgments in the cases of State ex rel. Davis v. Town of Lake Placid, opinion filed April 13, 1933, reported (Fla.) 147 So. 468, and State ex rel. Davis v. City of Largo, opinion filed May 2, 1933, reported (Fla.) 149 So. 420, 421.

Especially is the holding of this court in the latter case applicable here.

In that case we said: 'Undoubtedly, under the provisions of section 8 of article 8 of the Constitution of Florida, the Legislature has the power to establish municipalities, and to extend boundaries. But in exercising such authority it should at all times be kept in mind that the objects and purposes of such establishment or extension is to provide for an aggregation or community of people, and not simply an indiscriminate location of territory without regard for the requirements of the inhabitants. A sparsely settled area chiefly used for groves, farms, or gardens, or which is wild, unimproved, and vacant land and not needed for habitation or municipal purposes is not ordinarily within the meanpurposes or purpose of the Constitution. A most enlightening and interesting history and analysis of this subject is given in the opinion of Justice Whitfield in case of State ex rel. v. Avon Park, 149 So. 409, delivered at the present term of this court. While under the facts in the Avon Park Case it was held that quo warranto was not the proper remedy under that writ unless further amended, the case now under...