State v. Ocean Shore Imp. Dist.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1934
• Citation: 116 Fla. 284,156 So. 433
• Parties: STATE v. OCEAN SHORE IMPROVEMENT DIST. et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

156 So. 433

116 Fla. 284

STATE v. OCEAN SHORE IMPROVEMENT DIST. et al.

Florida Supreme Court

April 3, 1934

On Rehearing July 31, 1934.

En Banc.

Suit to validate certain bonds of Ocean Shore Improvement District, a special taxing district created, constituted, and existing under the laws of the state of Florida, and consisting of portions of Flagler and Volusia counties, by Ed Johnson and others, as members of the Board of Bond Trustees of such District. From a decree validating the bonds, the State of Florida appeals.

Affirmed.

On Petition for Rehearing. Appeal from Circuit Court, Volusia County; Geo. Wm. Jackson, judge.

COUNSEL

Murray Sams, State's Atty., Isaac A. Stewart and Stewart &amp Stewart, all of De Land, for the State.

Francis P. Whitehair and Hull, Landis & Whitehair, all of Ed Land for appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree validating $1,712,000 refunding bonds of Ocean Shore Improvement District, appellee. Fifteen questions are argued in this court, but all of them may be treated in a much more comprehensive scheme. Essentially these questions are raised. (1) In view of the limitations placed on the state to issue bonds by section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution, is it competent for the Legislature to authorize smaller units or taxing districts to issue bonds for other and different purposes? (2) Section 7 of chapter 10013, Special Acts of 1923, creating appellee is void and unconstitutional, being an unauthorized delegation of the taxing power. (3) Can a validating act or decree of the court give life to an act of the Legislature which is per se void and unconstitutional? (4) Is that portion of chapter 10013 Special Acts of 1923, imposing a property qualification to be a trustee of appellee Ocean Shore Improvement District and providing that said trustees be not appointed by the Governor or elected by the people valid? (5) Is that portion of chapter 10013, Special Acts of 1923, and amendments thereto relative to districting in Volusia and Flagler counties valid? (6) Can a taxing or bonding district be legally created by the Legislature without a determination of benefits? (7) Chapter 10013, Special Acts of 1923, is a violation of sections 1 and 2, article 8, of the Constitution of Florida.

We have examined each of these questions carefully and have read the extensive briefs of counsel supporting them. An opinion discussing them could serve no useful purpose because they have all been answered in previous adjudications of this court.

We have repeatedly approved the issuance of bonds by minor taxing units, under legislative authority for purposes other than those for which the state is authorized to issue them. Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 So. 336; Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Lewis et al. v. Leon Co., 91 Fla. 118, 107 So. 146. The record discloses that all the bonds and certificates of indebtedness brought in question were regularly issued as required by law, that they were regularly validated and approved by decree of the circuit court at the time of issuance and no constitutional objection to the acts under which they were issued is made to appear. A taxing district is not covered by that provision of the Constitution requiring that all officers be elected by the people or appointed by the Governor, consequently the Legislature is at liberty to require that bond trustees or supervisors of such districts be designated in other ways, and that voting in said districts be limited to property owners. We see nothing arbitrary or unreasonable with reference to districting Ocean Shore Improvement District and designating its bond trustees in reference to Volusia and Flagler counties. All other questions raised were foreclosed in the former validating proceedings, and in a suit like this to validate refunding bonds, it would not be proper to litigate questions raised and settled in former suits, no fundamental defects being made to appear. Thompson v. Town of Frostproof, 89 Fla. 92, 103 So. 118; Weinberger v. Board of Public Instruction of St. Johns Co., 93 Fla. 470, 112 So. 253; State v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 54, 137 So. 261.

The decree below is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.

DAVIS, C.J., and WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BROWN, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

CONCURRING

ELLIS Justice (concurring).

For the first time in the judicial history of this state, since the adoption of the Constitution of 1885, has the question been squarely presented to this court whether it is within the power of the Legislature, in view of the limitations placed upon that body by section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution, to empower political subdivisions of the state or smaller taxing units as political agencies of the state to issue bonds which become potential obligations of the state for other purposes than those specified in the section of the Constitution referred to above.

The question was not involved nor decided in Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 So. 336. The attack was upon the validity of the acts creating the Everglades drainage district, chapter 6456, Acts 1913, and amendments. After disposing of some constitutional questions, the learned circuit judge who wrote the opinion said: 'There being no constitutional prohibition against the passage of such statute, the act is valid.' Text 343 of 85 So.

It was at the time that case was decided generally conceded that bonds issued by drainage districts or smaller taxing agencies than the state could not be assumed...