State ex rel. Town of Crescent City v. Holland

Decision Date17 November 1942
Citation151 Fla. 806,10 So.2d 577
PartiesSTATE ex rel. TOWN OF CRESCENT CITY v. HOLLAND et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Dowda and Millican of Palatka, for relator.

J. Tom Watson Atty. Gen., and Joseph E. Gillen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Statement.

The following official opinions are pertinent to the matters discussed in this case.

'Constitutional Provision Regarding Proceeds of the Sale of Twenty-five Per Cent of Public Lands.

'Tallahassee Fla., February 5, 1908

'Hon. N. B. Broward, Governor

'Tallahassee, Florida

'Dear Sir:

'Your letter of recent date requesting my opinion as to whether Section 4 of Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides among other things that 'The common school fund * * * shall be derived from the following sources: * * * Among others, 25 per cent. of the sales of public lands which are now or may hearafter be owned by the State,' is of full force and effect and is applicable to the lands in the hands of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida, and if so, from what date and to what sales of said public lands is the State School Board entitled to an accounting and recovery.

'The section and article of the Constitution of Florida of 1885, relating to the State School Fund, is Section 4, Article XII, and its provisions are as follows:

"The State School Fund, the interest of which shall be exclusively applied to the support and maintenance of public free schools, shall be derived from the following sources.

"The proceeds of all lands that have been or may hereafter be granted to the State by the United States for public school purposes.

"Donations to the State when the purpose is not specified.

"Appropriations by the State.

"The proceeds of escheated property or forfeitures.

"Twenty-five per cent. of the sales of public lands which are now or may hereafter be owned by the State.'

'Section 5 of the same article provides that: 'The principal of the State School Fund shall remain sacred and inviolate.'

'The Constitution of 1868 contained the following section:

'Section 4 of Article VIII:

"The common school fund, the interest of which shall be exclusively applied to the support and maintenance of common schools and purchase of suitable libraries and apparatus therefor, shall be derived from the following sources:

"The proceeds of all lands that have been or may hereafter be granted to the State by the United States for educational purposes; donations by individuals for educational purposes; appropriations by the State; the proceeds of lands or other property which may accrue to the State by escheat or forfeiture; the proceeds of all property granted to the State, when the purpose of such grant shall not be specified; all moneys which may be paid as an exemption from military duty; all fines collected under the penal laws of this State; such portion of the per capita tax as may be prescribed by law for educational purposes; twenty-five per centum of the sales of public lands which are now or may hereafter be owned by the State.'

'Section 6 of the same article provides that: 'The principal of the common school fund shall remain sacred and inviolate.'

'Under the Constitution of 1868 the school fund was called the 'Common School Fund,' but under the Constitution of 1885 it was denominated the 'State School Fund.' Both constitutions provided for the ample and liberal maintenance of public free schools and created a fund, the interest upon which should be applied exclusively to the support and maintenance of such schools, and provided that the principal of such fund should remain sacred and inviolate. Both constitutions provided that the school fund should consist in part of twenty-five per cent. of the sales of public lands owned by the State.

'The term 'public lands' as used in the Constitutions of 1868 and 1885, designated a class of lands distinguished from those granted by the United States to the State of Florida for public school purposes, all the proceeds of the sales of such lands constituting part of the school fund, while only twenty-five per cent. of the proceeds of the sales of 'public lands' owned by the State, or thereafter acquired, was to be paid into the school fund.

'The public lands of which the State became the owner consisted (among others) of the sixteenth section in every township, granted by Act of Congress of March 3d, 1845 [5 Stat. 788], for school purposes; five hundred thousand acres granted by act of Congress of September 4th, 1841 [5 Stat. 455], (made applicable to Florida by act of March 3d, 1845 [5 Stat. 742],) for internal improvements, and the swamp and overflowed lands granted by act of September 28th, 1850 [9 Stat. 519].

'The term 'public lands' is defined to be such lands as are subject to sale or disposition by the government under general laws. New[h]all v. Sawyer [Sanger], 92 U.S. 761 .

'By Chapter 610, Laws of Florida [Acts 1854-55], approved January 6th, 1855, entitled 'An Act to provide for and encourage a liberal system of internal improvements in this State,' the Legislature set apart and declared as a distinct and separate fund, to be called the 'Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida,' and to be strictly applied according to the provision of the act, so much of the five hundred thousand acres of land granted to the State for internal improvement purposes as remained unsold, and the proceeds of the sales of such lands theretofore sold as remained on hand and unappropriated, and all proceeds that might thereafter accrue from the sales of such lands, and all the swamp lands subject to overflow granted to the State by the act of Congress approved September 28th, 1850, together with all the proceeds that had accrued or might thereafter accrue to the State from the sale of said lands.

'For the purpose of assuring a proper application of the fund to the purposes of the act, the said lands and all the funds arising from the sale thereof, after paying the necessary expenses of selections, management and sale, were 'irrevocably vested' in five trustees, all of whom were officers of the State government, and their successors in office, to hold the same in trust for the uses and purposes in the act provided. The trustees were vested with the power to sell and transfer the lands to purchasers and to receive payment for the same, and to invest the surplus moneys arising therefrom according to the provisions of the act.

'The act outlined a system of internal improvements, and pledged the fund to pay the interest as it might become due on the bonds issued by any railroad company under its provisions. By the provisions of Section 15 of the act, the State granted to each of the different companies that should construct portions of the lines of railroad on the routes indicated, the alternate sections of State lands on each side for six miles; and by the provisions of Section 16 the trustees were empowered to fix the price of the 'public lands' included in the trust, and make such arrangements for the drainage of the swamp or overflowed lands as in their judgment was deemed most advantageous to the fund and the settlement and cultivation of the lands.

'It was not the purpose of the Legislature to apply the magnificent estate composed of the swamp lands acquired under the act of Congress of September 28th, 1850, and the five hundred thousand acres acquired by the act of March 3rd, 1845, in its entirety to the building of railroads by the companies that might be organized for the purpose of building the lines of road along the routes indicated, nor did the Legislature contemplate that the fund would be exhausted by extending the aid contemplated. Trustees I. I. Fund v. Bailey, 10 Fla. 125 .

'Ample provision was made for the protection of the fund and the preservation of the same intact for the general welfare of the State, and the devotion of the swamp lands to the purposes for which they were granted by the United States. The purpose of the act was to create a fund to encourage and promote internal improvements by extending aid to railroad and canal companies in the building of certain lines of railroads and a canal; the reclamation of the swamp lands and the settlement and cultivation of the same.

'The title of the act declares that it was for the purpose of encouraging a liberal system of internal improvements in the State.

'The State of Florida did not part with the beneficial estate and interest in this great estate by vesting the legal titles to the lands in certain State officers and their successors, nor did it part with its right to dispose of that estate by charging those officers with the duties mentioned in the act, nor did the State divest itself of aught but the naked legal title to the lands mentioned. The beneficial interest and estate therein was retained by the State as owner, the act of 1855, Chapter 610, being merely a legislative legulation of the holding, management and sale of the lands therein mentioned. The title held by the trustees is of a public character, so that their deed is prima facie evidence of title in the grantee. Groover et al. v. Coffee, 19 Fla. 73, text.

'The lands designated in the act of 1855, Chapter 610, did not lose their character as public lands by being pledged in trust to aid in the construction of certain objects of improvement. The Legislature by that act simply designated some objects of improvement to be constructed first and to postpone others.

'The powers of subsequent Legislatures were not limited by the exercise of the powers of the Legislature of 1855, unless the act of the latter was of such character as called into operation a constitutional limitation, and something more than a simple antecedent exercise...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Greene v. Esquibel
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • April 21, 1954
    ...Murphy v. State, 65 Ariz. 338, 181 P.2d 336; Longview Co. v. Cowlitz County, 1 Wash.2d 64, 95 P.2d 376; and State ex rel. Town of Crescent City v. Holland, 151 Fla. 806, 10 So.2d 577. Holdings in sister states are shown by the following citations. In Arizona Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. S......
  • Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund v. Lobean
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 18, 1961
    ...... OF the INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND of the State of Florida, Petitioners,. v. O. H. LOBEAN, a/k/a ...& Tel. Co., Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 22; City of Winter Haven v. State, 1936, 125 Fla. 392, 170 ... State ex rel. Town of Crescent . Page 104. City v. Holland, ......
  • US v. Marion County, Fla.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • March 31, 1993
    ...time after the certificate is issued and before a tax deed is issued." Fla.Stat. § 197.472(1). See also State ex rel. Town of Crescent City v. Holland, 151 Fla. 806, 10 So.2d 577 (1942). If the certificate is not redeemed, the land covered by the certificates is sold by the clerk of the cir......
  • United States v. 295.90 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., CTY. OF LEE, FLA.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • January 3, 1974
    ...was ceded to the United States by virtue of the treaty with Spain in 1821 (8 Stat. 252). See, State ex rel. Town of Crescent City v. Holland, 151 Fla. 806, 10 So.2d 577 (1942); 26 Fla.Jur., Public Lands, § 3 (1959). Subsequently, in 1875, pursuant to a contract with the Surveyor General, on......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT