State v. Daniel

• Decision Date: 19 March 1924
• Citation: 87 Fla. 270,99 So. 804
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BUFORD, Atty. Gen. v. DANIEL et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

99 So. 804

87 Fla. 270

STATE ex rel. BUFORD, Atty. Gen. v. DANIEL et al.

Florida Supreme Court

March 19, 1924

En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Smimmons, Judge.

Proceedings in the nature of quo warranto by the State, on the relation of Rivers Buford, Attorney General, against Richard P. Daniel and others, as members of the County Welfare Board of Duval County, and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Ellis and Browne, JJ., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Subject of act providing for county welfare board held sufficiently expressed in title. Chapter 9274, Acts of 1923, is an act providing for a public administrative agency, viz. a county welfare board in counties of the state having a population of over 100,000, and the subject of the act is sufficiently expressed in its title to comply with section 16, art. 3, of the Constitution.

Act providing that county welfare board be composed of five men and four women held not unconstitutional as curtailing Governor's power of selection. The provision of chapter 9274, that the county welfare board shall be composed of 'five men and four women who are qualified electors in the county,' does not illegally curtail the Governor's power of selection, so as to violate section 27, art. 3, of the Constitution.

Classifications of counties for governmental purposes based on population permissible in enacting general laws. Classifications of counties for governmental purposes based upon population is permissible in enacting general laws.

Statute authorizing county commissioners to levy tax fixed by other county officers held not unconstitutional. The Constitution is not violated by a statutory provision that the county commissioners shall levy a tax in an amount fixed by other county officers when the statute itself authorizes such other county officers to fix the amount within a stated limit.

Law providing for county welfare board in counties of over 100,000 population held constitutional. Chapter 9274, Acts of 1923, does not violate sections 20 and 21, art. 38 of the Constitution.

'Uniformity of operation' and 'universality of operation' defined and distinguished. 'Uniformity of operation,' as used in Const. art. 3, §§ 20, 21, providing that laws shall have a uniform operation throughout the state, does not require 'universality of operation'; the former relating to similarity of conditions affecting subjects or localities of the state that are appropriately classified the latter relating to the whole and every part of the state.

COUNSEL

John T. G. Crawford, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

E. J L'Engle, George M. Powell, George C. Bedell, A. W Cockrell, Jr., P. H. Odom, Martin H. Long, and Richard P Daniel, all of Jacksonville, for defendants in error.

An information in the nature of quo warranto filed in the circuit court by the Attorney General contains allegations as follows:

'Comes now the state of Florida, on the relation of Rivers Buford, Attorney General of the state of Florida, and gives the said court here to understand and be informed that Richard P. Daniel, Robert H. McGinnis, Howard E. Harkisheimer, Waldo E. Cummer, John D. Baker, Mrs. Mamye S. Corbett, Mrs. Nellie L. Berlack, Mrs. Annie I. Broward and Mrs. Edith Griffin, all of said Duval county, state of Florida, for some time last past have held, used and exercised, and still do hold, use and exercise, severally, the office of member of the county welfare board of Duval county, Fla., and, collectively, pretend to constitute the county welfare board of Duval county, Fla., claiming to hold their said offices and to constitute said county welfare board and to exercise the pretended powers thereof under color of a certain act of the Legislature of the state of Florida entitled 'An act creating a county welfare board for each county having a population of over one hundred thousand, prescribing its powers and duties; providing for its financial support and providing for the qualifications of its members and repealing chapters 7336 and 8535, Laws of Florida'; that the said respondent county welfare board of Duval county, Fla., under color of said act entitled as aforesaid, has heretofore and is now pretending to act as a corporation, claiming the right to sue and to contract and to acquire and dispose of property as a corporation; that the said respondents claiming the right so to do under the terms of said act entitled as aforesaid, have directed the board of county commissioners of said Duval county, Fla., to levy a tax upon all the real and personal property in said county of three mills; and that said tax upon the assessed valuation of said property for the current year amounts to approximately two hundred thousand dollars; that the said act entitled as aforesaid is void and of no effect in the following particulars, that is to say:

'(1) The attempted limitation upon the power of the Governor to appoint the members of said board in the provision that said board shall be composed of five men and four women is in conflict with section 27 of article 3 of the Constitution; and said provision is an attempted exercise by the legislative department of the state of a power conferred solely upon the executive department by article 2 of the Constitution.

'(2) The title of said act does not sufficiently express or indicate the subject-matter thereof to meet the requirement of section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution.

'(3) The attempted repeal of chapters 7736 and 8535, Laws of Florida, by reference thereto in the title of said act by chapter numbers only, without any indication or description of the subject-matter or subject-matters of said chapters, is not a sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution to effect a repeal of said chapters.

'(4) By the said act the Legislature has attempted to authorize the said board to, in effect, levy taxes for the purpose of providing for persons not inhabitants of the said county, contrary to section 5 of article 9 and section 3 of article 13 of the Constitution.

'(5) By the said act the Legislature has attempted to authorize the said board to, in effect, levy taxes for the purpose of providing for persons who do not, by reason of age, infirmity or misfortune have claims upon the aid and sympathy of society, contrary to section 5 of article 9, and section 3 of article 13 of the Constitution.

'(6) By the said act the Legislature has attempted to authorize the said board to conduct, operate and maintain a general hospital, and to, in effect, levy taxes for said purpose, contrary to section 5 of article 9, and sections 1 and 3 of article 13, and article 15 of the Constitution.

'(7) The powers attempted to be conferred upon said board next hereinbefore enumerated, and the sttempted grant of authority to, in effect, levy taxes to enable said board to exercise said powers is prohibited by section 5 of article 9 of the Constitution.

'(8) The provision of section 3 of article 13 of the Constitution is a direct grant of power to the counties of the state and can only be exercised by the boards of county commissioners of the respective counties 'in the manner' prescribed by the Legislature.

'(9) The Constitution provides for a board of county commissioners in the respective counties who are general administrative officers of the county and impliedly prohibits the Legislature from conferring upon others any of the powers and duties usually exercised by such board of county commissioners as is attempted by said act.

'(10) The provision of said act that said board shall be a corporation is in violation of section 25 of article 3 of the Constitution.

'(11) The said act is a special or local law within the meaning and intent of the clauses of section 20 of article 3 prohibiting such laws regulating the jurisdiction and duties of any class of officers except municipal officers, and providing for the assessment and collection of taxes for state and county purposes.

'Whereupon the said relator prays the advice of this court in the premises, and for due process of law against the said respondents in this behalf requiring the said respondents to answer by what warrant they claim to hold, use and exercise the aforesaid offices, powers and franchises.'

The respondents demurred and moved to quash the information on the ground that the statute referred to in the information, chapter 9274, Laws of 1923, 'is not obnoxious to the constitutional provisions set forth in said information.'

The court sustained the demurrer and granted the motion to quash the information, and rendered final judgment as follows:

'This cause coming on this day to be further heard, and the relator having announced to the court that he would not amend the information in the nature of a quo warranto heretofore filed herein, and the court being of the opinion that the said information does not make or state a cause entitling the relator to the relief prayed, and being advised of its judgment herein, it is thereupon finally

'Ordered that the individual respondents as members of the county welfare board of Duval county, Fla., do rightfully and lawfully severally hold office as members of said county welfare board of Duval county, Fla., and that the corporate respondent is rightfully and lawfully enjoying and exercising its corporate franchises.'

A writ of error was taken by the relator.

The statute asserted to be unconstitutional is as follows:

'Chapter 9274--(No. 156).

'An act creating a county welfare board for each county having a population of over one hundred thousand; prescribing its powers and duties; providing for its financial support...