Stockton v. Powell
| Decision Date | 12 March 1892 |
| Citation | 10 So. 688,29 Fla. 1 |
| Parties | STOCKTON v. POWELL et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Duval county; W. B. YOUNG, Judge.
Suit by Telfair Stockton against Benjamin R. Powell and others county commissioners of Duval county, to restrain them from issuing certain bonds. From a judgment dismissing his bill on demurrer, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. The purpose for which, under the act of June 11, 1891, entitled 'An act to authorize Duval county to improve the navigation of the St. Johns river, and to issue bonds in aid thereof,' the proceeds of the bonds are authorized to be applied, is 'the work of improving the navigation of the St. Johns river, and removing obstructions therefrom, within the county of Duval.' This work is a county purpose within the meaning of the provisions of section 5, art. 9, of the constitution, that the legislature shall authorize the several counties to assess and impose taxes for county purposes, although the river is a navigable stream and public highway, and may run from its mouth in the county, and hundreds of miles beyond the limits of the county, and through other counties, and commerce is carried on as an entirety upon it from its mouth towards its source for the distance stated, and thence back, and a large portion of its commerce is to or from other states and foreign countries and the commerce and business of the river confined within the limits of the county are very small and of no importance. The statute is not in conflict with the constitutional provision designated.
2. Commerce with foreign nations and among the states embraces not only subjects which are national in their character and require, in order to preclude discriminating regulations by the states, uniformity of regulation affecting all the states, but also such matters, within the purview of such commerce, as are local in their nature or operation, and can be properly regulated by provisions adapted to their particular circumstances. The power of congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states is exclusive only in so far as it relates to those subjects of such commerce that fall within the former or national class. As to this class the states have no power to act, even in the absence of congressional regulation, but, as to any subject within the other or local class, the states have plenary power of control so long as congress does not act as to it. The improvement of a navigable river connecting with the ocean, and constituting a navigable water of the United States, but lying entirely within a state, is a subject falling within the second or local class, and such improvement may be made by or under the authority of the state so long as the free navigation of the river, as it may be permitted by the laws of the United States, is not impaired, on any system for its improvement provided by the general government is not interfered with or defeated.
3. The act of June 11, 1891, (chapter 4077, St.,) authorizing the county of Duval to improve the navigation of St. Johns river, and remove obstructions therefrom, is not in conflict with the provision of the constitution of the United States, which gives congress power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.
4. If it be that the act of June 11, 1891, authorizing the county of Duval to improve the navigation of the St. Johns river, and to issue bonds, the proceeds of which are to be applied to such purpose, does not provide any means or method for paying the principal and interest on the bonds, such fact is not a good objection to the validity of the act or to the issue of the bonds thereunder, nor is the fact that such provision may not be otherwise made.
5. The courts have no power to inquire whether the notice of application to the legislature for local or special legislation, required by section 21 of article 3 of the constitution, and by the legislation thereunder, defining the method of publishing and proving the publication of such notice, (Act of May 31, 1887; chapter 3708, St.,) has been given. To ascertain and decide whether the required notice has been given is exclusively a legislative function and duty, and the passage of a special or local act is a legislative judgment that proper notice has been duly published, and that the legal evidence thereof was 'established in the legislature' before the bill was passed, and the courts are concluded by such judgment.
6. A recital in the records of a special meeting of a board of county commissioners, that the meeting was 'called by the chairman for the purpose of ordering an election' as to issuing bonds of the county under the provisions of a designated statute, is, in the absence of allegation and proof to the contrary, sufficient evidence that notice of the time and purpose of such special meeting was given to each member of the board.
7. A special meeting of a board of county commissioners, of which each commissioner has been duly notified, may be adjourned to a subsequent day by the members present, a majority of the entire board; and, it seems, that less than a majority may do so. The members present at such meeting have actual notice of the adjournment, and those not present are charged in law with notice thereof, and the adjourned meeting is but a continuation of the original one, and anything done at the adjourned meeting concerning the matter for which the meeting was originally called is as legal as if it had been done before the adjournment.
8. Where a regular meeting of a board of county commissioners adjourns to a subsequent day, all the members being present, each member is charged with the official duty of attending, and with notice of any lawful action to be taken at such adjourned meeting, and anything done at such meeting, within the power of the board to do, is not rendered invalid by the fact that one member did not attend it.
9. A statute providing for an election as to the issue of bonds by a county directs that the returns of the election shall, within two days after the election, be delivered to the clerk of the circuit court, to be laid before the board of county commissioners, and that the board shall publicly canvass the returns at their 'next regular or special meeting,' and declare the result. Held, that the purpose of the act in the use of the words quoted was to secure promptness of action upon the part of the board, rather than to exclude from any particular meeting the power to canvass the returns, and that a canvass of such returns made at an adjourned regular meeting held on a day subsequent to the election, to which day the regular meeting had been adjourned from a day prior to the election, was legal.
10. Payment of poll-taxes was not a requisite or qualification for voting at the election in Duval county as to issuing bonds under the act of June 11, 1891, for the improvement of the navigation of the St. Johns river. Though this is not expressly declared by the act, its provisions show clearly a legislative intent that no such qualification was to be required, but that all persons duly registered as voters, and retaining the qualifications which preserve the legality of registration, should have the right to vote.
11. The act of June 11, 1891, authorizing Duval county to improve the navigation of the St. Johns river, required returns to be sent to the clerk of the circuit court, and to be delivered by him to the county commissioners, and authorized the commissioners to canvass them. The county judge and supervisor of registration had nothing to do with the canvass under the general election law, and properly took no part in it.
12. That a canvassing board has before it, when making a canvass of votes cast at an election, not only the returns properly made under the statute, but also a duplicate return made to an officer which the law did not require to be made, is immaterial.
13. The mere fact that oaths of inspectors and poll-lists may have been transmitted to an officer not authorized to receive them is an irregularity which does not affect the result of an election, or the legality of the canvass of returns duly made of votes cast at the election.
14. The act of June 11, 1891, authorizing Duval county to improve the navigation of the St. Johns river, provides that the bonds to be issued under the act 'shall bear the seal of the aforesaid county of Duval.' The county commissioners passed a resolution that 'the seal of the circuit court for Duval county, and of this board, now in use, is adopted as the common seal of Duval county.' Held, that the act authorized the use of the seal of the circuit court of Duval county in sealing the bonds, and, to the extent that the resolution indicated the will of the board that it should be so used, the resolution was valid, but not further or otherwise.
Cooper & Cooper, for appellant.
Randall & Foster, for appellees.
I. This is a suit for an injunction to restrain the appellees, who are the county commissioners of Duval county, from issuing bonds under the provisions of an act approved June 11, 1891 and entitled 'An act to authorize Duval county to improve the navigation of St. Johns river, and to issue bonds in aid thereof.' Chapter 4077, p. 119, St. 1891. The purpose for which the proceeds of the bonds are authorized to be applied is 'the work of improving the navigation of the St. Johns river, and removing obstructions therefrom, within the county of Duval.' Section 8, p. 121. The demurrer to the bill was sustained, and, the complainant declining to amend, the bill was dismissed.
The first objection urged against the issue of the bonds is that the purpose for which their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.
... ... Atkinson, 222 U.S. 370, 32 S.Ct. 160, ... 56 L.Ed. 237; Southern R. Co. v. Reid. 222 U.S. 424, ... 32 S.Ct. 140, 56 L.Ed. 257; Stockton v. Powell, 29 ... Fla. 1, 10 So. 688, 15 L. R. A. 42; Pennsylvania Co. v ... United States, 236 U.S. 351, 35 S.Ct. 370, 59 L.Ed. 616; ... ...
-
Carlton v. Mathews
...Cotten v. County Commissioners of Leon County, 6 Fla. 610: Skinner v. Henderson, 26 Fla. 121, 7 So. 464, 8 L. R. A. 55; Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1, 10 So. 688, 15 L. A. 42; County Com'rs of Duval County v. Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196, 18 So. 339, 29 L. R. A. 416; County Commissioners of Es......
-
Waybright v. Duval County
... ... notice of intention to apply for special legislation and at a ... time, therefore, when the doctrine established in ... Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1, 10 So. 688, 15 L.R.A ... 42, was in force. (See, also, amendments to Section 21, ... Article III, adopted in 1938.) ... ...
-
Lewis v. Leon County
... ... be constructed under a contract with the municipality and is ... to be under its control. In Stockton v. Powell, 29 ... Fla. 1, 10 So. 688, 15 L. R. A. 42, this court held that the ... deepening of the channel of St. Johns river within the limits ... ...