Citation Numbers: 73 Fla. 601
Judges: Whitfield
Filed Date: 3/8/1917
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/22/2021
At the instance of resident citizens and tax payers who were relators an alternative writ of mandamus was issued by the Circuit Judge commanding the County Commissioners of Pinellas County tq meet and receive a petition praying for a change of the county site of the county “and act upon the same, and call an election for the purpose of -.choosing and locating the permanent county site of said county, and that said election be called and held as required by law,” or to show cause for not doing so. The respondents filed the following return:
“1. Tfiat the permanent County site of Pinellas County was located, and intended both by the Legislature and by the voters of Pinellas County .to be located, at Clearwater in pursuance of the election held on the second Tuesday in November, A. D. 1911, under the
“2. These respondents deny that no permanent court-house, jail, or other permanent county building has been erected in Pinellas County since the same was created, and aver that the present County site is located at Clearwater, and Clearwáter is a city located*on two lines of railroad transportation, to-wit, the Atlantic Coast Line and the Tampa and Gulf Coast Railroad, and a new and substantial court-house of wood, including the necessary county offices, was constructed at Clearwater, in the year 1912, at a cost of several thousand dollars, which ever since has been, and now is, the Sburt-house of said county; that in a former proceeding brought against the predecessors of these respondents it was determined and decided by the Supreme Court of Florida, in the case of State ex rel., versus S. S. Coachman, et al., as County Commissioners of Pinellas County, officially reported in Volume 64 of the Florida Reports, at page 478, that the provisions of Chapter 6239 Laws of Florida, Acts of 1911, applied to Pinellas County, and under the provisions of said Act these respondents are without power or
This return was sustained on demurrer and motion, to quash. A demurrer' to the following replication was overruled;
“3. And for a third replication to the said return of the respondents herein, the relators say that the effect of Chapter 6247 of the Laws of Florida, and of the election held thereunder on the second Tuesday in November, 1911, as alleged, in said return, was to establish at Clearwater a temporary county-site only, for Pinellas County,, and that there has not been constructed in Pinellas County any permanent court house or any court house intended by the County Commissioners of Pinellas County to be a permanent court house for said County; that the building or structure which was at the time of the filing of the petition for election, as alleged in the petition for an alternative writ herein, being used and occupied by the County Commissioners and other officials of said County as temporary quarters for the transaction of the official business of said County of Pinellas, is a cheap, wooden building inadequate and insufficient 'for the use of the officials of said County in the transaction of the official business of said County which said building never was, at the time of the erection thereof nor since, considered or treated by the County Commissioners of said County as a permanent court house for said County, and which said building was not, when constructed, upon land belonging to the said County of Pinellas, but that the said building was constructed as a subterfuge and with the fraudulent intent and purpose on
The following rejoinder was filed:
“That it is untrue that there has not been constructed in Pinellas County any permanent Court House or any Court House intended by the County Commissioners to be a permanent Court House for said County, and
' A demurrer to the rejoinder was sustained and a peremptory writ of mandamus was issued the command thereof following that contained’in the alternative writ. The respondents took writ of error and contend that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the third replication, in sustaining the demurrer to the’rejoinder; and in granting the peremptory writ of mandamus.
The proceedings herein are for the enforcement of steps taken to hold an election to change the county site of Pinellas County pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 6239 Acts of 1911, section 10 of which Cljapter is amended by Chapter 6480 Acts of 1913, to read as. follows
“That Section ten (10) Chapter 6239, Laws of Florida, be amended so as to read as follows: ‘Section 10. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any county having constructed a new court house within the past twenty years, other than a county having constructed a court house of wood, in which the County site is situated in any town or city not located on any line of railroad transportation, and any person or persons, firm or corporation using- money, g-cods or chattels to secure votes or influence for any place as the County site of any County in this State, shall, upon conviction thereof, be Imprisoned in the State Penitentiary not exceeding two years.’ ”
As the return avers that a court house was constructed in Clearwater in Pinellas County in 1912 and that Clearwater is the.county site of Pinellas County and is a city located 011 two lines of railroad transportation,
In this case “the county having- constructed a new court house within the past twenty years,” and “the county site is situated in” a town that is “located on a line of railroad transportation,” the provisions of Chapter 6239 as amended do not authorize the holding- of the election contemplated.
Even if “the effect of Chapter 6247 of the Laws of Florida, and of the election held thereunder on the second Tuesday in November, 1911, * was to establish at Clear-water a temporary county site only” as alleged, yet as the pleadings show an election to change and establish the count}' site involved here is not authorized by Chapter 6239 under which the election is sought, the peremptory writ of mandamus was erroneously, ordered.
Though Chapter 6239 was applicable to Pinellas County before the amendment of 1913 to section 10 of the Act, that amendment excludes Pinellas County from the operation of the Act since as shown by the pleadings the court house in that county, though built of wood, was constructed within the past twenty years and the county site is located on a line of railroad transportation.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Si-iackleford and Ellis, JJ., concur.