State v. Dillon
Decision Date | 05 June 1900 |
Citation | 42 Fla. 95,28 So. 781 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. LAMAR, Atty Gen. v. DILLON et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Duval county; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.
Quo warranto, on the relation of W. B. Lamar, attorney general against Benjamin F. Dillon and others. A demurrer to the information having been sustained, the relator brings error. Affirmed.
On November 8, 1899, an information in the nature of a quo warranto was filed by leave of court in the circuit court of Duval county alleging that: 'William B. Lamar, attorney general of the state of Florida, who sues for the said state in this behalf, comes here before the judge of the circuit court of the Fourth judicial circuit of the state of Florida in and for Duval county, and in behalf of said state gives the said court to understand and be informed that Benjamin F Dillon, George R. Foster, Thomas W. Roby, Philip Walter, A Wm. Cockrell, Jr., Leopold Furchgott, Bion H. Barnett Alexander B. Campbell, and Jacob R. Tysen, to wit, in the municipality of Jacksonville, in Duval county, in said state, for the space of one year now last past and upwards, having used enjoyed, exercised, and performed, and still do use, enjoy, exercise, and perform, without warrant or authority, in violation of the existing constitution of said state, the franchise, functions, and powers of the office of the board of trustees of the waterworks and improvement bonds of the city of Jacksonville, and have actually assumed and exercised exclusive power and control over the construction, operation, supervision, and repairing of the waterworks, sewers, and fire department of said city, and all buildings and grounds used therefor, and over the organization and operation of the same, and have actually assumed and exercised exclusive power to employ such chiefs or heads of departments, firemen, engineers, clerks, superintendents, laborers, and other persons as said board deem necessary for the execution of its duties, or supposed duties, and have actually made and entered into contracts in the carrying out and furtherance of said duties and functions or supposed duties and functions; which said office and the franchise and functions and powers thereof the said Benjamin F. Dillon, George R. Foster, Thomas W. Roby, Philip Walter, A. Wm. Cockrell, Jr., Leopold Furchgott, Bion H. Barnett, Alexander B. Campbell, and Jacob R. Tysen during all the time aforesaid usurped, and still do usurp, upon the people of said municipality and state aforesaid, to their great damage and prejudice.
'And the said attorney general of said state, who sues as aforesaid, further gives said court to understand and be informed that the said Benjamin F. Dillon, George R. Foster, Thomas W. Roby,, Philip Walter, A. Wm. Cockrell, Jr., Leopold Furchgott, Bion H. Barnett, Alexander B. Campbell, and Jacob R. Tysen, to wit, in the municipality of Jacksonville, in Duval county, in said state, for the space of four months now last past and upwards, have used, enjoyed, exercised, and performed, and still do use, enjoy, exercise, and perform, without warrant or authority, in violation of the existing constitution of said state, the franchise, function, and powers of the office of the board of trustees for the waterworks and improvement bonds of the city of Jacksonville, and have actually assumed and exercised the exclusive power to appoint, subject to approval by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the city council, all officers of said city not elected by the electors (except officers properly belonging to the department of the board of public works of said city) and all members of the police force, and have actually assumed and exercised the control and regulation of the organization, number, and compensation of members of the police force and fire department of said city, and have actually assumed charge, management, and control of the electric light plant of said city, and have assumed and exercised other functions, powers, and duties conferred upon said office, or supposed to be conferred thereupon; which said offices and franchises and functions and powers thereof the said Benjamin F. Dillon, George R. Foster, Thomas W. Roby, Philip Walter, A. Wm. Cockrell, Jr., Leopold Furchgott, Bion H. Barnett, Alexander B. Campbell, and Jacob R. Tysen, during all the period of the time aforesaid usurped, and still do usurp, upon the people of said municipality and state aforesaid, to their great damage and prejudice.
'And the said attorney general of said state, who prosecutes as aforesaid, further gives said court to understand and be informed that the said Benjamin F. Dillon, George R. Foster, Thomas W. Roby, Philip Walter, A. Wm. Cockrell, Jr., Leopold Furchgott, Bion H. Barnett, Alexander B. Campbell, and Jacob R. Tysen, to wit, in the municipality, county, and state aforesaid, during the periods of time aforesaid, have usurped, and still do usurp, said office aforesaid, and the franchises and functions and powers thereof, as aforesaid, claiming warrant and authority therefor under and by virtue of an alleged ordinance of said municipality, which is in words and figures as follows, to wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carlton v. Mathews
...by the Constitution, the enactment is not invalid. Chapter 15659, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., is a duly enacted statute ( State v. Dillon, 42 Fla. 95, 28 So. 781; West State, 50 Fla. 154, 39 So. 412; State v. Hocker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 So. 767; State v. Brown, 20 Fla. 407), with a legally suffici......
-
Carlton v. Grimes
...v. Anderson, 66 Neb. 252, 92 N.W. 306,96 N.W. 212, [23 N.W.2d 896]98 N.W. 1075, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 136; State ex rel. Lamar v. Dillon, 42 Fla. 95, 28 So. 781;Hull v. Miller, 4 Neb. 503;School Dist. No. 11, Dakota County, Neb. v. Chapman, 8 Cir., 152 F. 887, 890-892;Johnson v. City of Great Fall......
-
Carlton v. Grimes
...... the street construction fund of the several incorporated. cities and towns of the state" in the ratio of their. respective populations to the total population of all such. cities and towns according to the last Federal census. . . \xC2"...252, 92 N.W. 306, 96 N.W. 212, 98 N.W. [23 N.W.2d 896] . . 1075, 5. L.R.A., N.S., 136; State ex rel. Lamar v. Dillon, 42 Fla. 95,. 28 So. 781; Hull v. Miller, 4 Neb. 503; School Dist. No. 11,. Dakota County, Neb. v. Chapman, 8 Cir., 152 F. 887, 890-892;. Johnson ......
-
Smith v. Thompson
...... . . The. appellant contends that the act is in contravention of. section 29 of article 3 of the state constitution because it. contains two or more subjects, two or more objects, and is. omnibus in form, subject, and object. Section 29 of article. ... nays, without a third reading, meets all of the. constitutional requirements. State v. Dillon, 42. Fla. 95, 28 So. 781; People v. Thompson, 2 Cal. Unrep. 481, 7 P. 142; Board of Com'rs. v. Strait, 36 Colo. 137, 85 P. 178; Johnson v. ......