State Ex Rel. Landis v. Reardon
| Decision Date | 11 May 1934 |
| Citation | 154 So. 868,114 Fla. 755 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. LANDIS, Atty. Gen., et al. v. REARDON et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1934.
In Banc.
Original proceedings in quo warranto by the State, upon the relation of Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and others, against J H. Reardon and others.
Demurrer to the information overruled, and demurrer to pleas of respondents sustained.
COUNSEL F. L. Hemmings, of Fort Pierce, and Evans Crary, of Stuart, for relators.
T. T Oughterson, of Stuart, for respondents.
Quo warranto proceedings were brought in this court by the Attorney General of Florida and by officers designated to exercise the duties of governing authority of St. Lucie Inlet district and port authority under chapter 16168 (Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 806), Acts of 1933, as corelators against officers of the St. Lucie Inlet district and port authority under chapter 13808, Acts of 1929 the defense against ouster being that chapter 16168 is inoperative because the local bill passed as chapter 16168 is materially different in some respects from the bill as introduced in the Legislature of which notice was published, and that as a consequence section 21, article 3, of the Constitution was violated in the enactment of the local bill, making it nugatory as a law.
Section 21, article 3, of the Constitution of Florida, as amended in 1928, contains a provision that:
'No local or special bill shall be passed, unless notice of the intention to apply therefor shall have been published in the locality where the matter or thing to be affected may be situated, which notice shall state the substance of the contemplated law.'
A purpose of the quoted organic provision is to require notice of the substance of a proposed local or special law to be duly published in the locality to be affected thereby, so that interested parties be not misled by an inadequate notice, but may be duly notified of the nature and substance of the local or special bill to be introduced in the Legislature; but there is no organic purpose to curtail the law-making power and responsibility of the Legislature to determine the contents of its enactments further than is reasonably necessary to secure to those who are directly interested therein due notice of the substance of a proposed local or special law, so that its enactment or the essential substance of the contents thereof may be contested if that is desired.
The inhabitants of the local communities and those directly interested in the premises have a constitutional right to have duly published in the locality to be affected the substance of a proposed local or special law, so that they may be duly notified of its general nature and purpose. The detailed contents of the bill to be enacted are subject to legislative discretion when the substance and purpose of the enactment accord with the published 'notice of intention to apply therefor.'
Whether a local or special law as enacted accords in substance with the published notice of intention to apply for its enactment, so as to comply with the mandate of the Constitution that 'no local or special law shall be passed' unless a notice stating 'the substance of the contemplated law' shall be published as required by law, must be determined by a consideration of the contents of the notice that was duly published and of the contents of the enactment in each case that is presented for adjudication.
To be a compliance with the abovequoted organic provision, the published notice should state the substance of the main provisions of the bill sufficiently to show the dominant nature and purpose of the proposed law, and the published notice should not be misleading as to the principal provisions of the proposed law.
If the substance of the bill introduced substantially accords with the notice duly published, amendments to the bill may be adopted by the Legislature, in the exercise of its lawmaking power, without violating the quoted organic provision, provided such amendments are germane to the main provisions of the bill, and do not materially change the substance and purpose of the bill as to which notice was duly published.
The notice of intention to apply for the enactment of a local law which was published is as follows:
'Notice
'To Whom It May Concern:
'Notice is hereby given of intention to apply to the Legislature of the State of Florida at its regular session A. D. 1933, for the passage of a local bill, the substance of which contemplated law is as follows:
'To abolish the Board of Commissioners of St. Lucie Inlet District and Port Authority and offices of Treasurer and Secretary as created and defined by chapter 13808, Laws of Florida, 1929, and Amendatory Acts thereto enacted by the Florida Legislature, 1931; to provide that all functions, duties and powers, as provided in chapter 13808, and the Amendatory Acts thereto, are to be thereby vested in the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County; that the Clerk of the Circuit Court of said County shall act as Secretary; to repeal or remove authorization for tax levy for maintenance, police, fire, sanitary and publicity purposes; that all properties and assets, as well as the books or records of said District, together with a written report setting forth the financial affairs etc., of said District, shall be delivered to the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County within thirty days after such Act becomes a law; that the purpose of this Act is to effect economy.'
The title of the bill introduced was:
'A Bill to be Entitled An Act to Abolish the Board of Commissioners of St. Lucie Inlet District and Port Authority and Offices of Treasurer and Secretary as Created and Defined by chapter 13808, Laws of Florida, 1929, and Amendatory Act Thereof Enacted by the Florida Legislature, 1931; to Provide that all Functions, Duties and Powers as Provided in Chapter 13808 and the Amendatory Act Thereof, are Hereby Vested in the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County, Florida Providing that the Clerk of the Circuit Court of said County Shall Act as Secretary and Treasurer of Said District; to Repeal and Remove the Authorization for the Tax Levy for Maintenance, Repair or Construction or for the Payment of Expenses in Carrying on or Transacting the Business of Said District, and to Repeal the Tax Levy for Police, Fire, Sanitary and Publicity Purposes; Providing that all Properties and Assets, as well as the Books and Records of said District, Together with a Written Report Setting Forth the Financial Affairs and Status of Said District shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Davis, 33268
...has presented any impediment to this Court in reaching the above stated conclusion. In State ex rel. Landis, Atty. Gen. v. Reardon, 114 Fla. 755, 154 So. 868, the Court held a statute may require county officers to perform duties for a district extending over more than one county without vi......
-
Town of Palm Beach v. City of West Palm Beach
...in other ways, and that voting in said districts be limited to property owners.' See also to the same effect, State ex rel. Landis v. Reardon, 114 Fla. 755, 154 So. 868, and Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530, 116 So. Question No. 3. It is urged that Section 8, which is the section o......
-
Barndollar v. Sunset Realty Corp., 57932
...nature and purpose of the act. State ex rel. Watson v. City of Miami, 153 Fla. 653, 15 So.2d 481 (1943); State ex rel. Landis v. Reardon, 114 Fla. 755, 154 So. 868 (1934). The appellants cite cases in which very general language was held to constitute sufficient notice. City of Hialeah v. P......
-
State Ex Rel. Gibbs v. Gordon
... ... requires ... A ... complete answer to this question is found in State ex ... rel. Landis, Attorney General, v. Reardon, 114 Fla. 755, ... 154 So. 868, wherein we held that Section Twenty-seven, ... Article Three of the Constitution had ... ...