State v. Fowler

Citation94 Fla. 752,114 So. 435
PartiesSTATE ex rel. DAVIS, Atty. Gen. v. FOWLER et al., Board of Plumbing Com'rs. [*]
Decision Date21 October 1927
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

In Banc.

Original proceeding in quo warranto by the State on the relation of Fred H. Davis, Attorney General, against John Fowler and others as the State Board of Plumbing Commissioners.

Respondents ousted from office.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Title of statute regulating plumbing held misleading and not properly to embrace provisions in body of act (Acts 1915, c 6944, as amended by Acts 1917, c. 7312; Acts 1925, c. 10207 as amended by Acts 1927, Senate Bill 113; Const. art. 3, § 16). The act under consideration violates section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution of the state of Florida, in that the title of the act is misleading and does not properly embrace the provisions found in the body of the act.

Legislature may not delegate power to enact law or to declare what law shall be or to exercise unrestricted discretion in applying law; Legislature may enact law complete in itself and authorize designated officials within limitations to provide rules and regulations for its complete operation and enforcement (Const. art. 3, § 1). The Legislature may not delegate the power to enact a law or to declare what the law shall be or to exercise an unrestricted discretion in applying a law; but it may enact a law complete in itself designed to accomplish a general public purpose, and may expressly authorize designated officials within definite valid limitations to provide rules and regulations for the complete operation and enforcement of the law within its expressed general purpose.

Paramount test to determine whether statute invalidly delegates legislative power is statute's completeness; statute must be so complete that nothing is left to judgment of delegate or appointee of Legislature; statute authorizing some named authority to decide what should and should not be deemed infringement thereof is unconstitutional. The paramount test as to whether or not a particular statute amounts to an invalid delegation of legislative power is the degeee of completeness of the statute as it appears when it leaves the hands of the legislative body. The law must be so complete in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the legislative branch of the government that nothing is left to the judgment of the delegate or appointee of the Legislature, and, where a statute passed by the Legislature is not complete as legislation, but authorizes an executive board or some other named authority to decide what should and what should not be deemed infringement of the law, it must be held unconstitutional as attempting to make an improper delegation of legislative power.

Legislature enacting statute complete in itself may authorize administrative commission whith fixed limits to provide rules and regulations for complete enforcement of law. The Legislature, in enacting a law complete in itself, designed to accomplish the regulation of particular matters falling within its jurisdiction, may expressly authorize an administrative commission within fixed and valid limits to provide rules and regulations for the complete operation and enforcement of the law within its express general purpose.

COUNSEL Fred H. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Mabry, Reaves &amp Carlton, of Tampa, for relator.

Whitaker Bros., of Tampa, and W. C. Hodges and C. L. Waller both of Tallahassee, for respondents.

This is an original proceeding in quo warranto, designed to test the constitutionality of chapter 10207, Acts of 1925, as amended by Senate Bill 113 of the Acts of 1927. By authority of the legislative acts assailed, the respondents claim to constitute, and are exercising the functions of 'the board of plumbing commissioners of the state of Florida,' and one of the respondents is also exercising 'the office of state plumbing inspector' by virtue of the same authority. The petition, with the amendment thereto, specifies twelve grounds, upon each of which it is claimed that the said acts are unconstitutional and void.

The history of legislation relative to plumbers in Florida is as follows: By chapter 6944, Acts of 1915, it is provided that in every city of 10,000 inhabitants or more a board of examiners of plumbers should be created, and that all persons engaged in the business of plumbing in such cities, 'either as a master plumber or employing plumber or as journeyman plumber, shall first receive a certificate,' etc. Examinations are provided for, and it is also stipulated that such cities shall provide rules for the construction and installation of plumbing. This act was amended by chapter 7321, Acts of 1917, and the above summary, more accurately speaking, is the effect of the first act as amended. This law is found in the Revised General Statutes of 1920, § 2251 et seq. In 1925, the Legislature, by chapter 10207, undertook to amend the Acts of 1915 and 1917 (ignoring the fact that said acts had been superseded by the Revised General Statutes) by creating a state board in lieu of the city boards previously provided for, and a state inspector, and authorizing said state board 'to establish, adopt, promulgate and to put into effect, a code governing the installation of plumbing' and to 'make such rules and regulations, * * * as it may consider necessary to the proper performance of its duties'; also requiring all plumbers to obtain a certificate from said state board and have the same renewed annually, paying therefor certain designated fees, and stipulating that 'any person receiving a license to engage in the plumbing business as provided in this act may engage in such business in any and all cities and towns in this state without the payment of any additional license fee except in such towns as such person or persons maintain an office'; also 'a certificate issued by the said board of plumbing commissioners, shall be effective throughout the state of Florida.' The board, as such, receives no salary, but is authorized to pay its own traveling expenses as well as the expenses of the plumbing inspector and deputy plumbing inspectors. By section 10 of the act, the office of state plumbing inspector is created. He is appointed by the Governor and holds for four years. His salary is fixed at $2,400 per annum, and by the amendment of 1927, it is provided that 'the salary of the state plumbing inspector shall be fixed by the state board of plumbing commissioners and shall not exceed $4,200.00 per annum, payable monthly by the said board,' etc.; also that 'said board of plumbing commissioners shall fix the duties of the state plumbing inspector, and shall have the supervision of such official.' The operations of the board are financed by funds raised as follows: Each applicant for certificate to engage in the business of a master plumber must pay $25, and $10 for the renewal of the certificate on the 1st day of each year; the journeyman plumber must pay $5 for the original examination, and $3 for each annual renewal; also the commissioners are authorized 'to charge and collect a fee of 25 cts. for each and every waste opening on all plumbing work installed in the state of Florida, and an additional fee of $.25 for each fixture installed in connection with such plumbing work. All such fees shall be paid by the plumber at the time of application for a permit to do such work,' etc. No provision is made to safeguard the moneys so authorized to be raised. Such funds are handled by the plumbing commissioners without let or hindrance, with no duty to account to any person, and without bond or other security. No part of the fund is ever conveyed into the state treasury.

Demurrer to petition was filed.

OPINION

BUFORD J. (after stating facts as above).

The petition with the amendment thereto alleges twelve grounds of attack, upon each of which it is contended that the act of the Legislature here under consideration is unconstitutional and void. It will not be needful to discuss more than two of the grounds of attack, though it may be that some of the objections contained in other grounds are as well...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • State Ex Rel. Fulton v. Ives
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1936
    ... ... is necessary to secure to the 'average barber' and ... his family suitable nourishment and maintenance. The analogy ... is almost perfect with the case of Schechter v. U ... S., 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 1570, 97 A.L.R ... 947. See, also, State v. Fowler, 94 Fla. 752, 114 ... So. 435; State v. Duval County, 76 Fla. 180, 79 So ... 692, relating to the delegation of legislative power ... No ... emergency exists to justify such an extraordinary bit of ... legislation even measured by the alleged findings of fact by ... the ... ...
  • Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1938
    ... ... Suit by ... the Miami Laundry Company against the Florida Dry Cleaning & ... Laundry Board, an official board of the state of Florida, ... challenging the constitutional validity of the act designed ... to regulate the cleaning, dyeing, pressing, and laundry ... Corporation v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 ... L.Ed. 1570, 97 A.L.R. 947. See, also, State v ... Fowler, 94 Fla. 752, 114 So. 435; State v. Duval ... County, 76 Fla. 180, 79 So. 692, relating to the ... delegation of legislative power ... ...
  • State ex rel. Field v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1932
    ...Commrs., 60 Atl. 214; State ex rel. v. Field, 119 Mo. 593; State ex rel. v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51; People v. Mahoney, 13 Mich. 481; State v. Fowler, 114 So. 435; Vallelly v. Board, 111 N.W. 615; Morgan v. Simpson, 81 N.E. 814; People ex rel. McCogg v. Chicago, 51 Ill. 17; State ex rel. Bixby v. ......
  • Wells v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1981
    ...power. State v. Cumming, 365 So.2d 153 (Fla.1978); Conner v. Joe Hatton, Inc., 216 So.2d 209 (Fla.1965); State ex rel. Davis v. Fowler, 94 Fla. 752, 114 So. 435 (1927). The legislature mandated that the "officer in charge of such institution" is the person qualified to designate the "regula......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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