F. W. BERRY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
CARY A. HARDEE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Berry challenged the constitutionality of Florida's Everglades Drainage District Acts, seeking annulment and injunctive relief against their enforcement. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that legislative assessments for drainage purposes are valid exercises of state power absent a clear showing of illegality or violation of organic property rights.
The court held that the drainage district acts constitute a valid exercise of legislative power for a public purpose. Legislative assessments made directly by statute are presumed valid and courts will not annul them absent a clear showing of illegality or violation of organic property rights. The acts do not violate the state constitution, and their administrative features are within legislative discretion.
“This is a public purpose, and State officials are charged with the duty of a proper application of the funds derived from the assessments and from the sale of bonds to a practical drainage of the lands.”
Establishes that the drainage project serves a public purpose justifying legislative authority and assessment authority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Everglades Drainage District was established by legislative acts to drain and reclaim lands in southern Florida that the state had received from C…
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 Constitutional Limitations On Legislative Power cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The bill of complaint herein seeks an annulment of Chapter 6456, Acts of 1913, and the amendatory Acts Chapters 6957, Acts of 1915, 7862, Acts of 1919 and 8413, Acts of 1921, (Secs. 1160 et seq. Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920) with appropriate injunctions against their enforcement.
The Acts establish the Everglades Drainage District of the State of Florida for purposes of drainage and reclamation of large areas of lands in the southern portion of the State that had been granted to the State by an Act of Congress of September 28, 1850, many of which lands had been conveyed to private owners while other large areas are held by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State for the purposes of the trust act Chapter 610, approved January 6, 1855, and the amendments thereto. Lands within the district owned by private parties as well as the lands held by the Trustees for the State are by the acts assessed in graded amounts per acre to raise funds for use and for the payment of the interest and principal of bonds authorized to be issued for drainage operations under the supervision of State officials, the purpose being to drain and render fit for profitable cultivation, the lands that are within the drainage district. This is a public purpose, and State officials are charged with the duty of a proper application of the funds derived from the assessments and from the sale of bonds to a practical drainage of the lands. The assessments are made directly by the legislative enactment, and benefits are presumed. In the absence of a clear showing of illegality because of conflict with organic property rights, the courts will not annul the legislative assessments. See Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 South. Rep. 47; Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 South. Rep. 336; Everglades Sugar & Land Co. v. Bryan, 81 Fla. 75, 87 South. Rep. 68; Bryan v. Dade Muck Land Co., 75 Fla. 330, 78 South. Rep. 349; Stewart v. DeLand-Lake Helen Special Road & Bridge Dist. in Volusia County, 71 Fla. 158, 71 South. Rep. 42; Anderson v. City of Ocala, 67 Fla. 204, 64 South. Rep. 775; Embree v. Kansas City & Liberty Boulevard Road Dist., 240 U. S. 242, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 317.
Provisions of the acts regulating the duties of State and County officers are incidental to the main purpose of the statutes and do not violate Sections 20 and 21, .Article III of the State Constitution. Kroegel v. Whyte, 62 Fla. 527, 56 South. Rep. 498; Lainhart v. Catts, supra.
The titles of these acts arc not deficient or misleading. Lainhart v. Catts, supra.
The administrative features of the statute are not shown to violate organic law. Courts are not arbiters of the policy or wisdom of statutes.
The method of enforcing payment of the assessments whether by administrative sale or by judicial proceedings is within the legislative discretion. The assessment made by the law affords binding notice of it -to the owner; and if the legislative assessments are not so palpably unjust as to violate organic property rights, the owner cannot avoid payment. Practically all of the questions involving principles of law here presented have been previously decided; and it does not clearly appear from the allegation of the bill of complaint that are admitted by the demurrer that the statutes complained of are merely arbitrary or plainly unjust or that their operation will inevitably violate complainant’s property rigths, therefore the order sustaining the demurrer to the bill of complaint is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. v. Daniel, 87 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1924)…rticle 13. Kroegel v. Whyte, 62 Fla. 527, 56 South. Rep. 498; State ex rel. Cheyney v. Sammons, 62 Fla. 303, 57 South. Rep. 196; Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 South. Rep. 47; Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 South. Rep. 336; Berry v. Hardee, 83 Fla. 531, 91 South. Rep. 685. The county commissioners are provided for by the constitution which declares that “the powers, duties and compensation of such county commissioners shall be prescribed by law.” The constitution is not violated by a provision th…
-
Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1928)…s used in the drainage operations have been received. The validity of the district and of the acreage tax have been adjudicated. Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 South. Rep. 47; Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 South. Rep. 336; Berry v. Hardee, 83 Fla. 531, 91 South. Rep. 685. The maintenance tax levied by Chapter 8412, Acts of 1921, was held valid in Richardson v. Hardee, 85 Fla. 510, 96 South. Rep. 290. The contest here is as to the levy of an ad valorem assesssment under Chapter 12016, Acts of 1927…1 / 2
-
Smith Bros., Inc. v. Williams, 100 Fla. 642 (Fla. 1930)…otection clauses of organic law and should not be enforced. Road Dist. v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 274 U. S. 188, 47 Sup. Ct. R. 563, 71 Law Ed. 992; Standard Pipe Line v. Highway Dist., 277 U. S. 160, 48 Sup. Ct. R. 441, 72 Law Ed. 831; Berry v. Hardee, 83 Fla. 531, 91 So. R. 685, State ex rel. v. Bass, 96 Fla. 478, 118 So. R. 212. If the road improvements, for which the certificates of indebtedness were issued predicated upon assessments made against abutting property, were primarily and essentially for the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1917)
- Stewart v. DeLand-Lake Helen Special Rd. & Bridge Dist. in Volusia Cnty., 71 Fla. 158 (Fla. 1916)
- Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170 (Fla. 1920)
- Anderson v. The City of Ocala, 67 Fla. 204 (Fla. 1914)
- Embree v. Kan. City & Liberty Boulevard Rd. Dist., 240 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1916)
- The Everglades Sugar & Land Co. v. Bryan, 81 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1921)
- Paul Kroegel and Others v. Richard Whyte and Others, 62 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1911)
- Bryan v. Dade Muck Land Co., 75 Fla. 330 (Fla. 1918)