BEN D. THURSBY, W. C. JACKSON, T. K. APGAR, BEDFORD JONES AND DAVIS FORSTER, AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. J. A. HARPER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a mandamus order compelling Volusia County Commissioners to pay a County Agent's salary, holding that House Bill 687, which conditioned payment on approval by the University of Florida's Extension Department director, violated the Florida Constitution by improperly delegating legislative authority to a non-elected official.
The statute was unconstitutional and void because it violated section 20, Article III of the Florida Constitution. The County Commissioners must pay the County Agent's salary as required by law.
“The Act clearly violates section 20, Article III of the Constitution and is void.”
The Court's holding that House Bill 687 was unconstitutional because it violated the state constitution's provisions on separation of powers.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. A. Harper was appointed and serving as County Agent for Volusia County, receiving $200 monthly salary from March 1 to May 19, 1931. On May 19, 1931…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The defendant in error being duly appointed as, and having discharged the duties of County Agent under the provisions of section 487 R. G. S., 606 C. G. L., was paid his salary from March 1, 1931, to May 19, 1931, at the rate of $200.00 per month, but' from May 19,1931, until the 11th day of September, 1931, the County Commissioners of Volusia County refused to pay the salary of the said County Agent because of the provisions of House Bill ^f687 approved by the Governor on May 19, 1931, ■ and becoming effective as a law on that date, wherein it was provided:
“Section 1. That from and after the time this Act shall become a law, it shall be unlawful for the County Commissioners of Volusia County, Florida, to appropriate or pay in any manner whatsoever any of the funds of said County to any person, as salary, part of salary or otherwise, serving or purporting to serve as County Agent in said County under and in pursuance of the Agricultural Extension Work Act of the Congress of the United States assented to by Chapter 6839, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1915, without the appointment of such person as such county agent having been duly *528approved by the director or vice-director of the Extension Department of the University of Florida.”
The County Commissioners of Volusia County having so refused to pay the salary of the county agent', defendant in error here, the county agent brought suit in mandamus to compel the County Commissioners to pay his salary. The County Commissioners answered the alternative writ' admitting in effect that the relator, defendant in error here, was entitled to the payment of his salary by the respondent except for the provision of the Act of the Legislature above referred to wherein it was required that the appointment of County Agent for Volusia County should be approved by the director or the vice-director of the Extension Department of the University of Florida and section 2 of the Act provided that any member of the Board of County Commissioners voting to appropriate or to pay any funds to such person without the appointment of such person having been duly approved by the director or vice-director of the Extension Department of the University of Florida should be removed from office.
On the return coming in, motion was filed for peremptory writ to issue, the return notwithstanding. The writ was issued and thereupon writ of error was sued out from this Court to review the order of the court.
The Act requiring the approval of the appointment of the County Agent by the director or vice-director of the Extension Department of the University of Florida applies in terms to Volusia County only.
The Act clearly violates section 20, Article III of the Constitution and is void. For cases in point see, Knight vs. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, decided at this term of the Court, and Pierce et al. vs. State ex rel. Trustees Special School District No. 32 of Pasco County, decided at this term of the Court, and cases cited in those opinions.
The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
*529Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gustafson, 127 Fla. 741 (Fla. 1937)…districts, as the case may be.” Neither of said enactments last above quoted may be regarded as a general law because there exists no reasonable basis for the classification by population as is contained in either of the Acts. See Thursby v. State, 103 Fla. 527, 137 Sou. 689; 100 Fla. 494, 129 Sou. 747; Knight v. Board of Public Instruction, 102 Fla. 922, 136 Sou. 631; Pierce v. State, 102 Fla. 1032, 136 Sou. 689; State v. O’Neal, 100 Fla. 1277, 131 Sou. 165. It follows that the two legislative Acts were…
-
ORR v. Attorney General, 32 Fla. Supp. 133 (Leon Cty. Cir. Ct. 1969)…her basis of classification impose conditions on them different in effect and operation from others similarly situated throughout the state.” State v. Gray, 133 Fla. 23, 182 So. 620; Shelton v. Reeder, Fla. 121 So. 2d 145. See also Thursby v. State, 103 Fla. 527, 137 So. 689; Knight v. Board of Public Instruction, 102 Fla. 922, 136 So. 631; Pierce v. State, 102 Fla. 1032, 136 So. 689; State, ex rel. Himes v. Culbreath, 128 Fla. 210, 174 So. 422. Chapter 67-2066 is a special act applying only to Sarasota Co…