STATE EX REL. A. J. RUSSELL, RELATOR,
v.
WM. D. BARNES, RESPONDENT
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 denied a petition for rehearing in a salary dispute between State ex rel. A. J. Russell and Comptroller Wm. D. Barnes, addressing whether the court properly considered the constitutionality of a legislative appropriation and whether legislative construction of the Constitution is binding on the courts.
The court necessarily implied the appropriation was unconstitutional to the extent it exceeded the constitutional salary limit. The court held that even if a statute represents legislative construction of the Constitution, courts are not bound by that construction and must apply their reasoned judgment when constitutional provisions are implicated.
“while the court in the decision complained of did not in express terms pronounce the provision of the act referred to unconstitutional, that is a necessary inference as to the excess, from holding that the salary to be paid relator was that prescribed by the new Constitution”
Establishes that the court's prior holding necessarily implied unconstitutionality of the appropriation to the extent it exceeded constitutional limits, even without explicit pronouncement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRussell claimed salary of $2,000 for 1888 under an 1887 legislative appropriation. The Comptroller (respondent) refused to pay, arguing the new Consti…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Separation Of Powers cases and more on FLexlaw
Maxwell, J.:
The petition for a rehearing in this ease is founded on an allegation that the decision of the court was “ made without regard to the constitutionality of the provision of the act of the Legislature of 1887, allowing and appropriating $2,000.00 for the payment of relator’s, salary for 1888 ; and hence the court omitted to decide whether said provision of said act was a legislative con-. struction of the Constitution, and if it was such, whether the court should deprive the relator of his right to said salary * * * under the statute, by sustaining the Comptroller, * * * when no attack has been made upon the constitutionality of said act.”
The claim of the relator for his salary was founded on the statute, and the respondent says he did not pay it because he was advised that the Constitution fixed the salary at $1,500.00, instead of $2,000.00. The question thus presented to the court was whether the salary should be paid as fixed by the new Constitution, notwithstanding the appropriation by the act of an amount allowing a large# payment? While the court in the decision complained of did not m express terms pronounce the provision of the act referred to unconstitutional, that is a necessary inference aato the excess, from holding that the salary to be paid relator was that prescribed by the new Constitution ; and while also-the court did not say whether the act furnished a legislative construction of the Constitution, and if it did, whether the court was not bound by it, the necessary inference from what the court did decide, is that even if the act furnished this legislative construction, that did not absolve the court from its duty to give a different construction when its reasoned judgment so dictated. Every respect is due from the courts to the enacted opinion of the .Legislature on a. constitutional question, but we do not understand that such opinion is to be considered in all cases as final. It cannot be doubted that the decision of the court in this case meant this, if' not so directly expressed. '.
The basis of the petition for a rehearing is therefore not well taken, and a rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. The Bd. of Equalizers of the State of Fla., 84 Fla. 592 (Fla. 1922)…. This court has repeatedly held that an officer of the State will not be compelled by mandamus to obey a statute that conflicts with the constitution. State ex rel. Russell v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 75, 5 South. Rep. 698; State ex rel. Russell v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 86, 5 South. Rep. 703; State ex rel. Mitchell v. Bloxham, 26 Fla. 407, 7 South. Rep. 873; State ex rel. Murphy v. Barnes, 24 Fla. 29, 3 South. Rep. 433; State ex rel. Milton v. Dickinson et al., County Commrs., 44 Fla. 623, 33 South. Rep. 514, 60 L. R.…
-
Barr v. Watts, 70 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1953)…v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 75, 5 So. 698. But"this Court has repeatedly'held that a state officer will not be required by mandamus to enforce a statute that is in, conflict with the constitution. State ex rel. Russell v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 75, 5 So. 698; Id., 25 Fla. 86, 5 So. 703; State ex rel. Mitchell v. Bloxham, 26 Fla. 407, 7 So. 873; State ex rel. Milton v. Dickenson, 44 Fla. 623, 33 So. 514, 60 L.R.A. 539; Board of Commissioners of La Fayette County v. Handley, 63 Fla. 90, 59 So. 14; State ex rel. Hubbard v.…
-
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 90 Fla. 708 (Fla. 1925)…137, 83 South. Rep. 672), yet appropriations of amounts not .within the limitations contained in the Constitution, can not lawfully be disbursed (State ex rel. Russell v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 75, 5 South. Rep. 698; State ex rel. Russell v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 86, 5 South. Rep. 703; State ex rel. Mitchell v. Bloxham, 26 Fla. 407, 7 South. Rep. 873); and that while Section 24 of Article IV requires all orders for the disbursement of State funds to be countersigned by the Governor, yet Section 4, Article I…