State Plant Bd. v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 31 May 1916
• Citation: 72 So. 175,71 Fla. 663
• Parties: STATE PLANT BOARD et al. v. ROBERTS et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

72 So. 175

71 Fla. 663

STATE PLANT BOARD et al. v. ROBERTS et al.

Florida Supreme Court

May 31, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. Pierre Branning, Judge.

Bill in equity by D. M. Roberts and others against the State Plant Board and others. From an order overruling a demurrer to the bill of complaint, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where a bill in equity is filed by several complainants, alleging that they are nurserymen and fruit growers severally owning distinct parcels of land which are described, upon which are situated nurseries and fruit groves, and that the complainants' 'interests are identical,' against the State Plant Board, a body corporate, certain named individuals as members of and constituting such board, and certain other named individuals 'as members of and constituting an advisory committee acting in charge of the State Plant Board,' seeking to compel the State Plant Board and its agents and representatives to modify certain rules and regulations which have been adopted 'so as to eradicate and expunge' a certain rule designated 'Rule 5,' a copy of which it attached as an exhibit to the bill, such bill is clearly multifarious both as to the parties complainant and the parties defendant, and a demurrer interposed thereto upon such ground is properly sustained.

Where a bill in equity is filed by several complainants, alleging that they are nurserymen and fruit growers, against the State Plant Board, a body corporate, the individual members thereof and certain other named individuals 'constituting an advisory committee acting in charge of' such board seeking to have the court require such board 'to eradicate and expunge' a certain designated rule which had been adopted by such board, and it appears from the allegations of the bill that the State Plant Board was created a body corporate by chapters 6885 and 6886 of the Laws of Florida (Acts 1915, pp. 194 and 201, vol. 1), and the constitutionality of such chapters is not questioned, and that section 6 of chapter 6885 expressly provides that 'the board shall, from time to time, make rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions and requirements of this act,' etc., a court of equity would not be warranted in granting the relief prayed; the complainants' own showing demonstrating a want of equity in their prayer.

COUNSEL Price & Eyles, of Miami, for appellants.

James T. Sanders and Geo. A. Worley & Son, all of Miami, for appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

D. M Roberts, J. G. Murray, E. B. Grutzbach, Arnold Dorn, John Wingate, and D. A. Williams filed their bill in chancery against 'the State Plant Board, a body corporate, P. K Yonge, E. L. Wartman, T. B. King, W. D. Finlayson, and F. E Jennings, as members of and constituting the State Plant Board and P. H. Rolfs, W. J. Krome, and Lloyd S. Tenny, as members of and constituting an advisory committee acting in charge of the State Plant Board.'

A demurrer was interposed to the original bill, but before any ruling was made thereon an amendment was filed to the bill, whereupon the demurrer already on file was addressed to the bill as amended. Again, prior to any ruling upon the demurrer, the complainants filed an amendment to their bill, and the defendants interposed a demurrer to the bill as it then stood, having been twice amended. This demurrer was overruled, from which interlocutory order the defendants have entered their appeal.

Very concisely stated, the bill as amended alleges that the complainants' 'interests are identical,' all being residents of Dade county and owners of real estate therein; the bill containing the following allegation:

'Your orators represent unto your honor that they are engaged in agricultural pursuits and own real estate in Dade county, Fla., and the particular occupation of each of your orators is that of nurserymen and the growing of citrous nursery trees for the purpose of transplanting said nursery trees or stock into grove form for the purpose of raising orange, grapefruit, and citrus groves; and that your orators own in the aggregate of such citrus stock property interests to the value of about $112,000, all located in Dade county, Fla., and more particularly described as follows:'

Then follow descriptions of the respective parcels of real estate owned by the different complainants individually upon which their nurseries and groves are situated. The bill then proceeds to allege that about 2 1/2 years previously there had come into the county of Dade and other counties in the state a certain bacterial disease commonly called 'citrus canker,' which spread for a time among the citrus trees and greatly damaged the citrus fruit industry and caused the enactment by the Legislature of the state of Florida of chapters 6885 and 6886 of the Laws of Florida (Acts of 1915, pp. 194 and 201, vol. 1), for the prevention of such disease. It is further alleged that under the provisions of such chapters there was created a body corporate designated as the State Plant Board, which proceeded to take charge of the situation and to make certain rules and regulations, among others being rule 5, which is as follows:

'Rule 5. Every grove, nursery or separate plant, situated in the state of Florida which is, has been or shall become affected with citrus canker is hereby declared to be the center of an infected and dangerous zone, which zone shall extend for a mile in every direction from said center and within which center and zone all trees, plants or nursery stock are declared to be plants likely to...