State v. Watters

• Decision Date: 19 April 1918
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SWEARINGEN, Atty. Gen. v. WATTERS et al. In re LAKE ASHBY DRAINAGE DIST.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

78 So. 671

75 Fla. 584

STATE ex rel. SWEARINGEN, Atty. Gen. v. WATTERS et al.

In re LAKE ASHBY DRAINAGE DIST.

Florida Supreme Court

April 19, 1918

Error to Circuit Court, Volusia County; J. W. Perkins, Judge.

Information in the nature of a quo warranto by the State of Florida, on the relation of Van C. Swearingen, Attorney General, against J. M. Watters and others, as Supervisors of Lake Ashby Drainage District. Demurrer to information sustained, and information dismissed, and relator brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

It is well settled that, unless the charter or governing statute requires it, the act of a corporation need not be evidenced by its corporate seal, except where a seal would be required in the case of an individual.

It is not essential to the validity of a drainage district formed pursuant to the provisions of chapter 6458, Acts 1913 (Comp Laws 1914, ss 635dd-635qqq), that the signatures of the petitioners upon the petitions for the creation and organization of such district, whether corporations or individuals, shall be under the seals of such petitioners.

COUNSEL Tom B. Stewart, of De Land, for plaintiff in error.

Giles J. Patterson, of Jacksonville, and Murray Sams, of De Land for defendants in error.

OPINION

WEST J.

An information in the nature of a quo warranto was filed on the 8th day of October, A. D. 1917, in the circuit court of Volusia county by the state of Florida, upon the relation of the Attorney General, against the respondents as supervisors of Lake Ashby drainage district, located in Volusia county.

The prayer is that the respondents 'be debarred from asserting the corporate existence of said purported Lake Ashby drainage district,' and that they be required to answer 'by what warrant or authority they claim to use, enjoy, exercise, assert and perform the franchise, functions and powers' of supervisors of said district.

The alleged grounds of invalidity upon which the authority of the respondents to exercise and enjoy the rights and privileges of a drainage district and supervisors thereof is challenged is that the petition praying for the creation and incorporation of said drainage district was not properly signed by various landowners of said district who are corporations, and that none of the signatures to such petition on behalf of individuals or corporations are attested by witnesses.

It appears from the allegations of the information that this district was created and organized under authority of the provisions of chapter 6458, Acts 1913, Laws of Florida (Comp Laws 1914, §§ 635dd-635qqq), providing for the creation and organization of such districts.

The information was demurred to, and upon a hearing on this demurrer the court below made an order sustaining it and dismissing the information. To review this order, writ of error was taken.

The argument of counsel for plaintiff in error is limited to a discussion of the question of the sufficiency of the signing of the petition by the corporation landowners of said district, and in order that the case may be decided on the merits and the question set at rest, we assume without deciding that the question raised may be properly presented in a proceeding of this character.

The statute authorizing the creation of such districts is as we have seen chapter 6458, Laws of Florida, and the provision of the statute with respect to the petition required to be filed by the landholders is section 1 of this statute, which reads as follows:

'The board of drainage commissioners of this state, or a majority, either in numbers or in acreage, of the holders of any contiguous body of wet or overflowed lands, or lands subject to overflow, situate in one or more counties in this state, may form a drainage district for the purpose of having such lands reclaimed and protected from the effects of water, for sanitary or agricultural purposes, or when the same may be conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare, or of public utility or benefit, by drainage or otherwise, and for that purpose the said board of drainage commissioners, or a majority of the owners, or the owners of a majority of the acreage of said lands may make and sign a petition, in which shall be stated the name of the proposed drainage district, and the number of years the same is to continue; the boundary lines of the

...