State v. Calhoun County

• Decision Date: 02 December 1936
• Citation: 127 Fla. 304,170 So. 883
• Parties: STATE v. CALHOUN COUNTY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

170 So. 883

127 Fla. 304

STATE v. CALHOUN COUNTY.

Florida Supreme Court

December 2, 1936

En Banc.

Suit by Calhoun County, by J. E. Yon and others, as members of and constituting the Board of County Commissioners of said county, against the State. From a decree validating bridge revenue bonds, the State appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; E C. Welch, judge.

COUNSEL

John H Carter, Jr., State Atty., of Marianna, for the State.

John D Trammell and Marion B. Knight, both of Blountstown, for appellee.

OPINION

ELLIS Presiding Justice.

The Legislature of Florida in 1933 enacted chapter 16344 (Sp.Acts). That act became a law without the approval of the Governor. It authorized the County of Calhoun to construct a bridge across the Apalachicola river opposite Blountstown between Calhoun County and Liberty County and to own and construct approaches thereto and to own and operate the bridge as a toll bridge according to maximum rates prescribed by the statute subject to a reduction of the same by the county as it may seem expedient.

The act authorized the county to borrow money with which to construct the bridge and the approaches thereto and to sell bridge or revenue bonds as evidence of such indebtedness and payable solely from the income derived from the bridge, and that such bonds should be a first and exclusive lien upon the bridge and approaches and the income thereof. The act also provided that the lien created by such indebtedness might be foreclosed from default in the payment of principal and interest. As an optional remedy, the act provided that a contract might be made with Calhoun County to take over the bridge in lieu of the foreclosure and in satisfaction of the lien by the turnover of bridge and approaches to the bondholders, provided that such bonds are held and owned by one person, one corporation, or otherwise held intact as a whole. The act also provided that there should be no general obligation upon Calhoun County for the construction of the bridge and approaches and no lien upon the real and personal property in Calhoun County.

Section 2 of the act provides: 'The Board of County Commissioners of said County shall have the power to do each and every act necessary in connection with the issuance and sale of such bonds, and no election shall be held in connection with the issuance of such bonds.'

The act provided for the employment by the county of an attorney and engineers in connection with such bridge matters. It was provided in the act that permission should be obtained from the United States government to build the bridge across the river; that the bridge should be operated as a self-liquidating project until such time as it may be taken over by some state or governmental agency to be operated as a free bridge.

In 1931 the Legislature enacted chapter 14715 prescribing the manner by which elections may be called and held for the approval of the issuance of bonds by counties and other agencies of the State of Florida in compliance with section 6, article 9, of the Constitution of the State of Florida as amended in 1930, and to regulate the holding of elections and to declare the result thereof.

In July, the county commissioners in Calhoun County, acting under authority of chapter 16344, supra, prepared by resolution to issue bonds in order to raise money for the construction of the bridge, and in due course application was made to the circuit court for Calhoun County for the validation of such bonds under the provisions of the statutes applicable thereto. No election was called under the provisions of amended section 6, article 9, of the Constitution for the approval of the issuance of such bonds by the registered voters of Calhoun County who were freeholders.

The judge of the circuit court, upon such application, by a decree duly entered, validated the issuance of the proposed bonds under the resolution of July, 1936. From that decree an appeal was taken to this court, and it was held that the proposed issue under such resolution was invalid because 'the issue of 'bridge bonds' or 'revenue bonds' in the name of the county and (2) the provision of the statute making such bonds a lien upon property acquired by the county in constructing the bridge and its approaches and providing for the foreclosure of such liens by subjecting the bridge and approaches to sale under foreclosure decree, would violate amended section 6, article 9 of the State Constitution, unless the issue of the bonds' should be 'approved by a vote of the freeholder electors of the county.' See State v. Calhoun County (Fla.) 169 So. 673.

The opinion in that case further stated: 'The statute gives al lien on the bridge and approaches,' and that provision 'violates amended section 6, article 9 of the Constitution, unless the proposed bond issue is approved by the freeholder electors of the county.'

In support of that proposition the court cited several decisions of this court, among which were Kathleen Citrus Land Co. v. City of Lakeland (Fla.) 169 So. 356, in which it was said that the decision of the court in the case of State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6, marked the limit of this court's sanction under section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution as amended, of efforts on the part of taxing agencies to exceed the limit of their borrowing capacity by circuitous and evasive methods of complex finance scheming supported by subtleties and refinements of reasoning to show that no debt or liability is imposed upon the taxing agency by such methods of borrowing.

Following the decision of this court in the case of State v. Calhoun County, supra, decided September 10, 1936, the Board of County Commissioners of Calhoun County on September 24, 1936, rescinded the former resolution of July 15, 1936, relating to the issuance of Apalachicola river bridge bonds, and by resolution provided for the issuance of such bonds after submitting the proposition to the qualified freeholder electors of Calhoun County under the provisions of chapter 14715, supra.

Following the election, which was duly held under the provisions of the statute to which reference is made, the Board of County Commissioners filed in the circuit court for Calhoun County an application for the validation of the bonds to be issued under the latter resolution and the election held under the statute pursuant to the terms of such resolution.

The allegations of the petition show that all the requirements of the statute applicable to such elections were complied with. The State attorney in behalf of the State answered such petition, and in a full and comprehensive pleading contested the validation of the bonds. Among other questions raised by such answer, the State attorney urged that the resolution of the county commissioners providing for an election to validate the bonds was insufficient to meet the requirements of amended section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution and chapter 14715, Acts 1931, in that the resolution did not direct the manner of publication of the notice of election and that the resolution did not set forth the form of notice of election to be published and that the form of ballot to be used in the election was not set forth in the resolution.

It was also urged in the answer that section 2 of chapter 16344, supra, providing that 'no election shall be held in connection with the issuance of such bonds,' invalidates the entire act as the act contains no separability clause, and therefore the clause is not separable from the other provisions of the act.

The court by decree found as a matter of fact that the county commissioners had complied with all the requirements of chapter 14715, Acts 1931, supra, in all preliminary matters as to resolution, notice of election, holding of the election, the number of freeholder electors participating, and the number voting affirmatively for the issuance of the bonds and all other requirements pertaining to an election under the provisions of amended section 6 of [127 Fla. 381] article 9 of the Constitution, supra, and, by decree duly entered, validated and confirmed the bonds described in the petition.

The court found that the total number of freeholders who were qualified electors residing in Calhoun County at the time of the election was 685, and the number of...