Judges： Browne, Ellis, Taylor, West, Whitfield, Wilson
Filed Date： 7/31/1919
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 11/7/2024
— The Charlotte Harbor and Northern Railway Company, as a taxpayer, on the 22nd day of February, 1918, filed its bill of complaint against
It is alleged in the bill that previous to the creation of the said “Charlotte Harbor Special Road and Bridge District,” the said County Commissioners had created in DeSoto County what was known and designated as the “Punta Gorda Special Road and Bridge District.”
It is further alleged that a large part of the “Charlotte Harbor Special Road and Bridge District” overlaps the territory embraced within the “Punta Gorda Special Road and Bridge District.” The appellant owning in the new, or “Charlotte Harbor Special Road and Bridge District,” alleges that said last mentioned special road and bridge district has no valid existence, and that the officers are without authority to levy special taxes on its property,, by reason of the fact that said district overlaps and includes territory embraced in the “Punta Gorda Special Road and Bridge District.” No objection is made to the regularity of the proceedings creating the two districts, and the sole question involved as to the legality of the “Charlotte Harbor Special Road and Bridge District,” is the question of
On the 29th of March, 1918, the appellee, defendant below, filed a demurrer to the bill of complaint. In view of the conclusion we have reached it is- unnecessary to write the grounds of demurrer into this opinion. It is enough to say that the first ground was general, averring a lack of equity; the second ground avers, in substance, that the bill on its face shows the “Charlotte Harbor Special Road and Bridge District” was legally created and established; while the third and fourth grounds of the demurrer set up a claim of estoppel by laches upon the part of the complainant.
On the 17th of June, 1918, the chancellor entered final decree sustaining the demurrer, and dismissing the bill of complaint. From this decree the complainant entered its appeal to this court.
There are four assignments of error. The first complains that the court erred in entering the said decree of June 17th, 1918; the second, complains that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the bill of complaint; the third, complains that the court erred in dismissing the bill of complaint; while the fourth is the same as the second, stating that the court erred in not overruling the demurrer to the bill of complaint.
The first legislation in this State on the subject of creating special road and bridge districts was Chapter 6208, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1911. Section 1 provided, in substance, that whenever residents of any territory embraced wholly or in part, in one or more road districts, as at that time constituted, in any county of the State of Florida, desire to have such territory constituted into a
The demurrer to the bill of complaint admits the truth of the allegations of the bill that the “Charlotte Harbor Special Road and Bridge District” was created out of a part of and overlaps the boundaries of the “Punta Gorda Special Road and Bridge District,” thus raising the question of whether or not this overlapping of the one upon the other district would render abortive the action of the
In view of the subsequent legislation on this matter, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon the authority of the county commissioners to create under Chapter 6208, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1911, special road and bridge districts, either partly or wholly overlapping each other. This point was doubtless pertinent at the time the demurrer was decided by the chancellor, but it is no longer so, and as the statute has been changed, and no further litigation is likely to arise under the one statute, there is no reason now for this court to determine this question.
The next legislation on the subject of special road and bridge districts was Chapter 6879, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1915. This legislation, however, did not amend or change section one of said Chapter 6208, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1911, and, therefore, has no bearing upon the question at issue.
The next legislation on the subject was Chapter 7750, Laws of Florida, of the extraordinary session 1918. This Chapter, among other things, amends Section 1 of Chapter 6208, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1911, and invests the county commissioners with authority to create into a special road and bridge district “territory embraced wholly or in part in one or more road districts, or wholly or in part in one or more ‘special road and bridge districts/ as at that time constituted in any county of this State,” thus, clearly defining the policy of the legislature towards the creation and maintenance of special road and bridge districts within the counties of Florida. It is argued that in as much as the statute did not authorize the creation of the special road and bridge district overlapping another at the time the attempt was made to create the
The first question we deem entitled to consideration is one of the power of the Legislature to pass an Act authorizing county commissioners in the several counties of the State, to create special road and bridge districts. Has the legislature the power to authorize by general Act the creation of this special road and bridge district in such a manner as that the boundaries of one may overlap upon another,, or to create a new district partly or wholly within the boundaries of an existing district? Unless there is some constitutional limitation upon this point, such an Act would be entirely within the discretion of the legislature. In matters of State policy and law-making the legislature has plenary powers, limited only by the Constitutions of the State of Florida, and of the United States. If an Act is regularly passed by the legislature and there is no constitutional limitation upon the power of the legislature to pass such an Act, then the Act is valid and binding, however harsh or oppressive it may seem. This court will never substitute its will for the will of the legislature. There is no provision in the Constitution. which would inhibit the passage of such an Act by the legislature; therefore, the legislature, under its general power, was the sole judge of whether it should enact such legislation. This .authority of the legislature has been upheld in other States with reference to the creation of drainage districts, the principle being the same as involved in the creation of the road districts. Mittman v. Farmer, 162 Iowa 364, 142 N. W. Rep. 991,
In Maltby v. Tautges, 50 Minn. 248, 52 N. W. Rep. 858, in the body of the opinion of the court says, — “the construction of highways and bridges furnishes one of the most common occasions for special legislation creating special taxing districts, frequently, several in number,, and often overlying each other. Different taxing districts, for the same general purpose, may be thus created' where there are peculiar reasons why one part of the public should bear a proportion of the burden greater than that which should be borne by another, and a greater rate of taxation be imposed on some districts than on others. This does not violate the principle of equality and uniformity of taxation if the establishment of several districts has only equality and justice in view.” 1 Cooley
In Hopkins v. Special Road and Bridge District No. 4, in Brevard County, 73 Fla. 247, 74 South. Rep. 310, this court said, “in authorizing the formation of special road and bridge districts in the county, the legislature may adopt any method it chooses, no constitutional limitation being thereby violated.”
Concluding that the legislature had the power to pass the Act in such, form as to authorize the county commissioners to- create districts overlapping each other, we turn now to the question of the validity of the Act of the extraordinary session of the legislature in 1918, which is Chapter 7750, Laws of Florida. It is suggested by counsel that in view of the fact that the “Charlotte Harbor Special Road and Bridge District” 'was organized with its boundaries overlapping upon the “Punta Gorda Special Road and Bridge District” prior to the passage of Chapter 7750, Laws of Florida,, extraordinary session, 1918, authorizing county commissioners to create a special road and bridge districts in territory wholly or in part in one or more special road and bridge districts, that the
We are unable to find any prbvision in the Constitution of Florida prohibiting the passage of retroactive laws by the legislature, and in the absence of any express provision declaring such law inoperative and void, no law should be declared void simply because it may be retroactive in its action. 8 Cyc., page 1018.
Without discussing the question of whether or not the county commissioners had authority to create special road and bridge districts overlapping each other, at the time of the creation of the “Charlotte Harbor Special Road and Bridge District,” we are clearly of the opinion that if the legislature had the power to put into the original bill, Chapter 6208, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1911, a declaration authorizing boards of county commissioners to
This doctrine has heretofore been recognized in this State. City of Jacksonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 525; Cranor v. Volusia County Com’rs, 54 Fla. 526, 45 South. Rep. 455; Givens v. Hillsborough County, 46 Fla. 502, 35 South. Rep. 88.
Objection is also made that Chapter 7750, Laws of Florida, extraordinary session 1918, is unconstitutional because it is claimed that it was not regularly passed by the legislature under the requirements of the Constitution. We do not think the objection is well taken. We conclude that said Chapter is constitutional and valid, and that it authorized county commissioners in the several counties of the State to create special road and bridge districts in territory lying wholly or in part in one or more special road and bridge districts, and that it also validates and cures all special road and bridge districts, including the Charlotte Harbor Special Road and Bridge District, which were created by county commissioners from territory lying wholly or in part in one or more other special road and bridge districts.
Since the passage of Chapter 7750, Laws of Florida, extraordinary session 1918, the legislature in its regular session in 1919, passed a special validating Act, which is Chapter 8024, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1919, and was passed for the special purpose of legalizing, validating,
It is entirely useless now for this court to enter into any discussion of the question involved in the demurrer to the bill of complaint. Neither is it necessary to determine whether or not the chancellor was correct in hi's ruling on the demurrer, and his order dismissing the bill. Since that order was made, and since the case has been, in this court, conditions have changed on account of the: legislation just mentioned; and, as was said in the case,
The decree of the chancellor overruling the • demurrer and dismissing the bill of complaint should be affirmed.
Pee Curiam. — The record in this cause having been considered by this court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 7887, Acts of 1919, adopted by .the court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the decree herein be and the same is hereby affirmed.