Steele v. Freel

• Decision Date: 02 April 1946
• Citation: 157 Fla. 223,25 So.2d 501
• Parties: STEELE et al. v. FREEL et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

25 So.2d 501

157 Fla. 223

STEELE et al. v. FREEL et al.

Florida Supreme Court

April 2, 1946

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bay County; Ira A Hutchinson, judge.

J. M & H. P. Sapp, of Panama City, for appellants.

Cecil A Rountree, of Chipley, and Mabry, Reaves, Carlton, Anderson & Fields, of Tampa, for appellees.

Treadweel & Treadwell and E. D. Treadwell, Jr., all of Arcadia amici curiae.

BUFORD, Justice.

The record before us shows that on January 8, 1944 A. E. Freel and B. H. Freel owned not less than an undivided one-half interest in all oil, gas and minerals in and under certain described lands in Bay County, Florida, with the right of entry and occupancy to operate and remove the same, the deed conveying such oil, gas and mineral rights to A. E. Freel and B. H. Freel having been dated January 8, 1944, and having been duly recorded in the public records in the clerk's office in Bay County Florida.

That certain tax sale certificates numbered, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 18 and 32 were issued on August 1, 1927 by the Tax Collector of Bay County, Florida, embracing the lands, the oil, gas and mineral rights in which were thereafter acquired by A. E. Freel and B. H. Freel.

That these certificates were afterwards sold and assigned by the Clerk of the Circuit Court to Rae Steele under the provisions of Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937, commonly known as the Murphy Act. That on or about June 1, 1945 while Rae Steele was the owner and holder of the tax certificates he filed them in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Bay County, Florida, and made application for a tax deed to be issued on said tax sale certificates.

Thereupon the Clerk of the Circuit Court advertised the lands covered by said certificates for sale, the sale to be held on July 2, 1945. After the lands were so advertised by the Clerk and before the sale A. E. Freel and B. H. Freel tendered to the Clerk of the Circuit Court and offered to pay the amount necessary to pay the taxes, interest and costs evidenced by said certificates, or to redeem said lands from sale under the said certificates and deposited the sum of $1,443.98, the full amount due on said tax sale certificates, and the cost incident thereto and made application to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for duplicates of said certificates to be issued to them in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22784, Acts of 1945, F.S.A. § 211.01 et seq., but the said Clerk refused to accept the said money for said purposes and refused to issue to the plaintiffs such duplicate certificates.

Thereafter, on June 30, 1945, A. E. Freel and B. H. Freel filed their suit in the Circuit Court of Bay County, Florida, against W. S. Weaver as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Bay County, Florida, and Rae Steele to restrain the issuance of a tax deed under the tax sale certificates above referred to and to mandatorily require the cancellation of the original certificates and the issuance of duplicate certificates as required by Section 14 of Chapter 22784, Acts of 1945.

The bill also prayed for such other and further relief as plaintiffs might appear to be entitled to.

Motion was filed by the defendants to dismiss the bill of complaint after the entry of a temporary restraining order.

When the matter came on for hearing the Court entered the following decree:

'The above stated cause came on to be heard at Panama City on August 27, 1945, upon motion to Dismiss the Bill of Complaint and was argued by counsel for the respective parties. At the beginning of the argument counsel for the respective parties agreed that the only question before the Court or necessary to be passed upon in order to finally dispose of the cause, was the constitutionality of Chapter 22784, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1945. Upon due consideration the Court now orders, adjudges and decrees as follows.

'1. That said Chapter 22784 is constitutional and valid as to the parties and questions involved in this cause and that it is the duty of the Clerk of this Court to observe and perform the requirements of said Statute.

'2. The language of Section 5 of the Bill of Complaint leaves the Court in doubt whether the Clerk now has the sum of $1443.98, the amount due on the Tax Sale Certificates described in the Bill of Complaint, including interest and costs, to-wit: Certificates numbers 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 18 and 32, issued on the 1st day of August 1927 by the Tax Collector of Bay County, Florida, or whether the Clerk returned said amount to the Plaintiffs. If said sum is in the Clerk's hands, or if not upon the re-deposit of said amount with the Clerk by the Plaintiffs, the said Clerk is hereby directed and ordered to pay to the Defendant, Rae Steele, the amount due and payable upon said Certificates for the redemption thereof and cancel said certificates and issue and deliver to the Plaintiffs duplicate Certificates as required by said Chapter 22784.

'3. The Temporary Injunction heretofore issued in said cause is hereby made permanent.'

From this Decree appeal is taken.

So it appears that the only question considered by the court below, and which question is now before us, is whether or not Chapter 22784, Acts of 1945, is unconstitutional in any respect which affects the rights of the defendants in the court below, the appellants here.

The question otherwise stated is, were the existing rights or prerogatives of either Rae Steele or the Clerk of the Circuit Court so adversely affected by the provisions of Chapter 22784, supra, as to give them, or either of them, a status which would warrant them, or either of them, in interposing a challenge to the constitutionality of the legislative Act. This is true because the rule is well established that for one to assert the invalidity of a statute he must show that in some way his rights are being invaded thereby. See 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 76, page 161; 11 Am.Jur. 748-752; Land v. State, 77 Fla. 212, 81 So. 159 and cases there cited; Hillsborough Investment Co. et al. v. Wilcox et al., 152 Fla. 889, 13 So.2d 448 and cases there cited; State ex rel. Johnson v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, 109 So. 473; State ex rel. Core v. Chillingworth, 126 Fla. 645, 171 So. 649.

The above-cited cases also establish the rule that one who is not himself denied some constitutional right or...