Warren v. Pope

• Decision Date: 17 April 1953
• Citation: 64 So.2d 564
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: WARREN, Governor, et al. v. POPE et al.

Page 564

64 So.2d 564

WARREN, Governor, et al. v. POPE et al.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

April 17, 1953.

J. D. Hobbs, Jr., Forrest O. Hobbs and W. Frank Hobbs, Tampa, for appellants.

Wilson & Swearingen and W. P. Allen, Bartow, for appellees.

THOMAS, Justice.

This appeal is akin to Warren v. Rhea, Fla., 64 So.2d 567, the only relevent difference in fact being that here the lunatic was not charged with any crime at the time of her commitment to the asylum. But points of law not common to the other case are presented and we shall undertake to decide them.

The appellees insist that there was no law at the time of the committal, January 30, 1930, authorizing a suit now to recover the expenses incurred in the care and treatment of the patient, because of the repeal by Chapter 14527, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1929, Ex.Sess., of that part of Sec. 2312, Revised General Statutes 1920, providing that in cases were persons non compos mentis were solvent expenses of their care and treatment at the hospital should be paid from their estates.

Appellants reply that there was no valid repeal because of failure to comply with the requirements of Sec. 16 of Article III of the Constitution, that 'Each law * * * shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title; * * *.' The amendatory act was described as one 'to Amend Section 2312 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida, Relating to Compensation in Lunacy Cases.' [Emphasis added.] The section as it appeared in the compilation was entitled 'Compensation, etc.' It consisted of but one paragraph containing provisions for payment of fees to examining physicians, lay-committeemen, county judges, and sheriffs, and for the approval of accounts. There followed a proviso for the charge against the county of expenses and costs where the person declared insane was solvent, for the payment of such 'costs, charges and expenses,' and for the lunatic's maintenance out of his estate. All provisions we have digested were in one sentence. In the repealing or amendatory act, the provisions about fees of officers and others were retained but revised, while references to allocation of costs, charges, and expenses were eliminated.

We have often discussed the true purpose of the consitutional requirement with reference to titles of acts of the Legislature and its application to the situation at hand, and have not been reluctant to hold acts invalid where the titles were deceiving labels of the contents. But in this case we cannot agree that one reading the title would have been misled about what the Act contained. To do so we would have to adopt the view that there was such real distinction between the subject of compensation of officers and the subject of payment for maintenance at the State Hospital, with the incidental collection of the cost of care for the patient and treating him there, that reference to 'compensation' belied any disturbance of the unrelated, dissociated subjects of care and treatment.

A close study of the section amended does not lead us to that conclusion. The various items of expenses were blended in one sentence. Costs and charges were placed under the heading 'Compensation' and were first fixed, then dealt with as chargeable either to the county or the lunatic's estate, according to his financial condition. Eventually, in the sentence containing the authorization to defray costs, charges and expenses from the lunatic's property were added the words 'and for the maintenance of said lunatic * * *.' To follow appellants' reasoning we would have to attach to the quoted words more significance than they deserve. We agree with appellees in their view that the word 'compensation' means, without giving it a strained construction, the payment not only for services furnished in the care of an insane person, but also the payment for the services performed in the determination of his mental state.

That such a definition was intended by the Legislature in the legislation affecting insane persons is apparent from the title of Chapter 3115, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1879, where the present law, Chapter 394, Florida Statutes 1951, and F.S.A., with reference to receipt of pay patients originated. It read: 'AN ACT to allow Lunatics, Idiots, or Insane Persons, whose Friends, Parents or Guardians are able to Pay for the Support of such Lunatics, to be Received into the Asylum for Indigent Lunatics, and to allow the authorities of such Asylum to receive Compensation therefor.' So, almost from the beginning of relevant legislation, the word 'compensation' was applied to reimbursement of the hospital for costs of maintaining a solvent inmate.

'This court is committed to the rule that it should not declare statutes void as violative of Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution relative to titles and subject-matter properly connected therewith except in clear cases free from every reasonable doubt * * *.' McConville v. Ft. Pierce Bank...