State v. Macgibbon

Decision Date06 February 1920
Citation84 So. 91,79 Fla. 132
PartiesSTATE ex rel. WHITE et al., Board of Com'rs of Escambia County v. MacGIBBON, Clerk of Circuit Court.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Court of Record, Escambia County; C. Moreno Jones, Judge.

Mandamus by the State of Florida, on the relation of J. George White and others, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County, Fla., against James MacGibbon, as clerk of the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Fla., and ex officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of that County. Demurrer to alternative writ sustained, and writ dismissed and relators bring error. Reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Boards of county commissioners are proper parties relators in mandamus proceedings to compel the circuit court clerk, as ex officio clerk of their board, to draw and sign a warrant ordered by the board on the county's funds with which to pay for and procure a title to and possession of land purchased for the county by such board from which to procure materials for the construction of the public roads of their county, even though such warrant is to be drawn in favor of and made payable to a third party the vendor of the land that such warrant is to pay the purchase price of.

The headnote in the published reports of the case of Wiecking v. State ex rel. Coackman, 66 Fla. 49, 62 So. 898, is misleadingly broad, and is hereby qualified so as to read as follows: 'The county commissioners are not the proper parties to mandamus the clerk to draw a warrant ordered by them in favor of private parties, unless such commissioners are officially directly interested in the payment of such warrant.'

COUNSEL R. Pope Reese, of Pensacola, for plaintiffs in error.

Blount & Blount & Carter, of Pensacola, for defendant in error.

OPINION

TAYLOR J.

The above-named board of county commissioners of Escambia county sued out a writ of mandamus in the court of record of said county against James MacGibbon, as clerk of the circuit court of said county and ex officio clerk of said board of county commissioners, to compel him to draw, countersign, and seal a warrant on the county road funds payable to one J. D. Hall with which to purchase from said Hall certain described lots of land for said county from which to take deposits of clay thereon for use on the hard-surface roads in said county. The respondent demurred to the alternative writ upon the sole ground that the relators are not proper parties to this proceeding, and have no such interest therein in the subject-matter thereof as authorizes them to maintain same as relators. The court below sustained this demurrer and dismissed the writ, and the relator county commissioners have brought this judgment here for review by writ of error.

Shortly stated, the alternative writ alleges, in substance, that said relators, in pursuance of their duties as such county commissioners over the public roads of the county, finding it necessary to purchase clay to be used in the repair and rebuilding of certain named county public roads, found such suitable clay deposits upon certain described lots of land near and adjacent to the roads to be repaired, that were owned by unincumbered title in fee simple by one J. D. Hall that the said Hall proposed to said commissioners to sell and convey to them by unincumbered fee-simple title the said lots of land containing such clay deposits upon the payment by them of the price of $620 therefor; that by resolution adopted at a meeting of said board of county commissioners the said offer to sell said lots by said Hall at the said price named was accepted, and a warrant for the said purchase price was ordered to be drawn on the road funds of the county and signed by the chairman of the board and its clerk and delivered to the said Hall upon the delivery by him of a deed duly executed by him and his wife to the said clay...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hillsborough County v. Highway Engineering & Const. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1940
    ... ... by the Highway Engineering & Construction Company, ... Incorporated, against Hillsborough County, a political ... subdivision of the state of Florida to recover on a quantum ... meruit basis for the paving of a street. To review a judgment ... for the plaintiff, defendant brings error, ... statutory enactment. With this we cannot agree. In the case ... of State ex rel. White et al. v. MacGibbon et al., ... 79 Fla. 132, 84 So. 91, it was written that 'Under our ... statutes the boards of county commissioners are given plenary ... power ... ...
  • State Ex Rel. Norris v. Chancey
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1937
    ... ... 81] ... and making it the duty of the comptroller to honor the same ... The case of Holland v. State, supra, was quoted and cited ... with approval ... The ... Holland Case was also quoted from and cited with approval in ... the case of State ex rel. White et al. v. MacGibbon, ... 79 Fla. 132, 84 So. 91, in which the principle enunciated in ... the Holland Case was applied to a somewhat different ... situation. In that case the county commissioners had ordered ... a warrant drawn in favor of one Hall, which warrant ... represented the purchase price of real estate ... ...
  • State ex rel. Glenn v. Smith
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • September 28, 1949
    ... ... an action to mandate payment to the clerk. The relator, as a ... justice of the peace, was directly and officially interested ... in having his clerk paid, and had sufficient interest to ... bring the action. State ex rel. White v. MacGibbon, ... 1920, 79 Fla. 132, 84 So. 91. See also Board of County ... Com'rs of McIntosh County v. Kirby, 1935, 174 Okl ... 20, 49 P.2d 746. 'Public officers or boards of officers ... may maintain proceedings in mandamus to compel other officers ... to perform ministerial acts which come within the ... ...
  • Dick v. State ex rel. Harris, 3933
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 1963
    ...not in the Board but in others who would receive all of the benefits. This distinction is clearly set forth in State ex rel. White v. MacGibbon, 1920, 79 Fla. 132, 84 So. 91, wherein it was noted that in Pennock and in Wiecking the Board was not officially directly interested in the payment......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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