Stewart v. De Land-lake Helen Special Road and Bridge Dist. in Volusia County

Decision Date15 February 1916
PartiesSTEWART v. DE LAND-LAKE HELEN SPECIAL ROAD AND BRIDGE DIST. IN VOLUSIA COUNTY et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied March 2, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Volusia County; Jas. W. Perkins, Judge.

Proceeding by the De Land-Lake Helen Special Road and Bridge District in Volusia County, by M. Bond and others, County Commissioners to validate a bond issue, wherein a petition for intervention, answer, objection, and demurrer were filed by Isaac A. Stewart. From an adverse order, Stewart appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The maxim of 'Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant' is not applicable to cases where the precedent act is special or particular and the subsequent act is general; the rule being that a later general act does not work any repeal of a former particular statute.

In the construction of general and special acts the maxim 'Generalia specialibus non derogant' applies, and a general act will not be held to repeal or modify a special one embraced within the general terms of the general act unless the general act is a general revision of the whole subject, or unless the two acts are so repugnant and irreconcilable as to indicate a legislative intent that the one should repeal or modify the other.

One statute will not be held to repeal a former one, unless there is a positive repugnancy between the two, or the latter was clearly intended to prescribe the only rule which should govern the case provided for, or it revises the subject-matter of the former, or expressly repeals it.

The invariable rule of construction in respect to the repealing of statutes by implication is that the earliest act remains in force, unless the two are manifestly inconsistent with and repugnant to each other.

Laws should be construed with reference to the Constitution and the purpose designed to be accomplished, and in connection with other laws in pari materia, though they contain no reference to each other.

Where one statute in comprehensive terms covers a subject, and another later statute embraces only a particular part of the same subject, the two should be construed together, unless a different legislative intent appears; and the statute relating to the particular part of the general subject will operate as an exception to or qualification of the general terms of the more comprehensive statute to the extent only of the repugnancy, if any.

While statutes may be impliedly as well as expressly repealed, yet the enactment of a statute does not operate to repeal by implication prior statutes, unless such is clearly the legislative intent.

An intent to repeal prior statutes or portions thereof may be made apparent, when there is a positive and irreconcilable repugnancy between the provisions of a later enactment and those of prior existing statutes. But the mere fact that a later statute relates to matters covered in whole or in part by a prior statute does not cause a repeal of the older statute.

If two statutes may operate upon the same subject without positive inconsistency or repugnancy in the practical effect and consequences, they should each be given the effect designed for them, unless a contrary intent clearly appears.

Chapter 5762 of the Laws of 1907 has not been repealed by chapter 6208 of the Laws of 1911 (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 884a-884q), and there are no such conflicts in the provisions of the two chapters that they cannot stand together and each be operative.

Our state Constitution is a limitation upon power; and unless legislation duly passed be clearly contrary to some express or implied prohibition contained in the Constitution, the courts have no authority to pronounce it invalid.

The reasonableness or justice of a deliberate act of the Legislature, the wisdom or folly thereof, the policy or motives prompting it, so long as the act does not contravene some portion of the organic law, are all matters for legislative consideration, and are not subject to judicial control. The courts are bound to uphold a statute, unless it is clearly made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt that it is unconstitutional.

Where a statute does not violate the federal or state Constitution the legislative will is supreme, and its policy is not subject to review by the courts, whose province is not to regulate, but to effectuate, the policy of the law as expressed in valid statutes.

Great latitude should be accorded to the Legislature in the exercise of its proper powers.

The Constitution does not define or amplify the term 'county purposes' for which counties may be authorized 'to assess and impose taxes,' and the Legislature, in exercising its appropriate lawmaking functions, may determine what is a 'county purpose,' and the courts are not authorized to render such determination ineffectual, unless some provision of the Constitution is violated, or unless the particular enactment can have no legal or practical relations whatever to any 'county purpose.'

Chapter 6208 of the Laws of 1911 (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 884a-884q) is not violative of sections 1 and 2 of article 8, or of sections 3 and 5 of article 9, of the state Constitution, or of section 16 of article 3 of such Constitution.

There are no such conflicts in the provisions of chapter 6678 of the Special Laws of 1913, as amended by chapter 7145 of the Special Laws of 1915, and chapter 6208 of the Laws of 1911 (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 884a-884q), as amended by chapter 6879 of the Laws of 1915, that such chapters cannot stand together and each be operative.

The Legislature exercises plenary control over public highways whether they be public county roads or streets in cities and towns.

Bounds of wide discretion should be accorded to the Legislature, in the interest of the public welfare.

There is no express provision in the state Constitution as to special assessments for local improvements, nor is there any express provision in such Constitution as to the formation of taxing districts for particular purposes.

When the nature of the case does not conclusively fit it, the power to determine what shall be the taxing district for any particular burden is purely a legislative power, and is not to be interfered with or controlled, except as it may be limited or restrained by constitutional provisions.

Every presumption is in favor of the correctness of an order or decree rendered by a circuit judge, and the burden rests upon one appealing from such order or decree to overcome this presumption of law.

COUNSEL Tom B. Stewart, of De Land, for appellant.

Landis Fish & Hull, of De Land, for appellees. On the 11th day of September, 1915, the De Land-Lake Helen road and bridge district in Volusia county, Florida, by M. M. Bond and the other county commissioners of such county, filed a petition under the provisions of chapter 6868 of the Laws of Florida (Acts 1915, page 141), for the purpose of having validated a bond issue for the sum of $350,000, which had been voted upon and authorized at a special election held on the 13th day of July, 1915, under the provisions of chapter 6208 of the Laws of Florida (Acts 1911, page 167), as amended by chapter 6879 of the Laws of Florida (Acts 1915, page 182). The petition is quite lengthy, having a number of exhibits attached thereto and covering 66 typewritten pages. We do not copy the petition or exhibits, but shall refer to such portions thereof and make such excerpts therefrom as may seem necessary or desirable for a proper understanding of this opinion. Suffice it now to say that the petition sets forth in detail all the different steps taken, both preceding and subsequent to such special election, and alleges a strict compliance with all the statutory requirements. The transcript shows that such petition was presented to the circuit judge on the date that the same was filed, who on the same day made an order to the effect that the state of Florida, through the state attorney for the Seventh judicial circuit, show cause before such circuit judge on the 9th day of October, 1915, 'why said bonds should not be validated and confirmed'; that a copy of such petition and such order of court be served upon such state attorney at least 18 days prior to the date fixed for such hearing, and also----

'that prior to the hearing of said cause the clerk of this court shall publish in a newspaper published in the said De Land-Lake Helen special road and bridge district, once each week for at least three weeks before said hearing, the first publication to be at least eighteen (18) days before said hearing, a notice addressed to the taxpayers and citizens of said De Land-Lake Helen special road and bridge district, requiring them, at the time and place specified in this order for the hearing of said cause, to show cause, if any they have, why said bonds should not be validated and confirmed.'

The transcript further shows that the state attorney was served, and also that publication was made in compliance with such order.

On the 9th day of October, 1915, Joseph H. Jones, Esq., the state attorney for the Seventh judicial circuit of Florida, filed his answer to such petition, which, omitting the caption and introductory paragraphs, is as follows:

'This respondent, now and at all times reserving to himself the right of exception to the petition heretofore filed, for answer thereunto as provided by law, answering says:
'As state attorney of the Seventh judicial circuit of the state of Florida, the district in which De Land-Lake Helen special road and bridge district in Volusia county, Florida, is situated, he admits that a petition was filed in this honorable court on the 11th day of September, 1915, in and by M. M. Bond, J. Le Roy and bridges, and the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • State v. City of Tampa
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 11 d6 Março d6 1939
    ... ... ] Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; ... Harry N. Sandler, judge ... provides for the payment into a special fund, which fund has ... been created by said ... Howell, 73 Fla. 563, 74 So. 802; ... Stewart v. DeLand-Lake Helen Special R. & B. Dist., ... ...
  • State Ex Rel. Harrell v. Cone
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 6 d3 Outubro d3 1937
    ... ... CONE, Governor, et al, (Washington County Case). Florida Supreme Court October 6, 1937 ... monthly to the county Road and Bridge Fund of Washington ... County all ... advanced to the state by each County Special Road and Bridge ... District or other taxing ... 363, 72 So. 477, 482. See, also, Stewart v. DeLand-Lake ... Helen S. R. & B. Dist., 71 ... ...
  • Carlton v. Mathews
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 28 d3 Outubro d3 1931
    ... ... areas, and consequently more road mileage, and less financial ... resources ... county and district roads generally connect with roads ... special road and bridge and other special taxing ... 196, 18 So. 339, 29 L. R. A. 416; ... Stewart v. DeLand-Lake Helen Special Road & Bridge Dist. in ... Volusia County, 71 Fla. 158, 71 So. 42, text 49; ... ...
  • Lewis v. Leon County
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 23 d6 Janeiro d6 1926
    ... ... Public ... highway may be state road, but as to that portion passing ... through ... department of state, county, or special road or ... bridge district to aid in ... 196, 18 So. 339, 29 L. R. A. 416; Stewart v. Road ... District, 71 Fla. 158, 187, 71 So ... Stewart v. Special Road and Bridge Dist., 71 Fla ... 158, 71 So. 42, and cases cited ... 88, 110 Am. St. Rep. 104; Cranor v. Volusia County ... Com'rs, 54 Fla. 526, 45 So. 455; ... ...
  • 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