STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA ROSA, FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1958-09-10
ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
105 So. 2d 365 Florida Supreme Court (1958) Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases

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.

Synopsis

Florida Supreme Court upheld the validation of Santa Rosa County's certificates of indebtedness issued to finance courthouse and jail improvements. The Court rejected constitutional challenges to the special act authorizing the certificates, holding that the act's title was sufficient, the legislative notice was adequate, and that courthouse and jail construction does not require a freeholder vote.


Holding

The Court affirmed validation of the certificates. The act's title was sufficiently informative despite verbosity and did not violate the single-subject rule. The published notice met all constitutional requirements. Courthouse and jail construction is essential to county government and does not require a freeholder vote, and the limited pledge of revenues (excluding general obligation status) did not alter this conclusion.


Key Quotes

“To meet the requirements of Section 16, Article III of the Constitution, it is necessary that the title to the act be sufficient to put the world on notice as to its contents.”

Establishes the constitutional standard for statutory titles

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Santa Rosa County issued certificates of indebtedness to finance additions to and repairs of the county courthouse and jail. The certificates were pay…

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.


Opinion of the Court
TERRELL, Chief Justice.

TERRELL, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from a final decree vali-' dating an issue of certificates of indebtedness, hereinafter referred to as certificates, proposed by Santa Rosa County for the purpose of providing additions to and making repairs to the county court house and jail, and to pay the expenses of said improvements. The certificates are payable solely from (1) the proceeds of an ad valorem tax of five mills, imposed pursuant to Chapter 135, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and (2) fifty per cent of the monies distributed to the county as its share of license taxes imposed on race tracks and jai alai or pelota frontons, under Chapters 550 and 551, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

The resolution of the county commissioners authorizing the certificates provided that their payment be secured solely by the taxes detailed in the preceding paragraph and that the holders could not compel the full faith and credit of the county or the exercise of the taxing power to pay them when they mature. The proceeds of the two taxes so described, said the trial court in its validation decree, were sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the certificates as they matured. The certificates were authorized by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Chapter 57-1827, Laws of Florida.

The resolution of the Board of County Commissioners authorizing the issuance of the certificates was adopted February 11, 1958, and was amended April 8, 1958. It found that the erection of additions to and improvements on the court house and jail were necessary and that the taxes enumerated herein and imposed for the amount and time stated would be sufficient to pay for them. Pursuant to these proceedings, petition to validate the certificates was tendered as provided by Chapter 75, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., order to show cause was duly issued and published as provided by law. No taxpayer, citizen or other person appeared to resist the relief prayed for in *367■the petition to validate. It is admitted that ■only questions of constitutional law were raised by the pleadings, the facts were agreed to. On consideration of the questions of law raised, the Chancellor entered a final decree validating the certificates.

It is first contended that the title to Chapter 57-1827, Florida Laws, Sp.Acts 1957, •does not meet the requirements of Section 16, Article III of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A.

To meet the requirements of Section 16, .Article III of the Constitution, it is necessary that the title to the act be sufficient to ^put the world on notice as to its contents. The title to the act assaulted is as follows:

“An Act to provide for financing court houses, jails and other public buildings and extensions thereto in Santa Rosa County and authorizing .and empowering the governing body ■of Santa Rosa County for the purpose •of erecting or repairing or adding to .any court house, jail or other public ■county building, to issue certificates of indebtedness in anticipation of any •public building tax levied under Chap-ter 135.01, Florida Statutes, and in anticipation of the receipt by Santa Rosa •County of any moneys under the provisions of Chapters 550 and 551, Florida Statutes, relating to race tracks and Jai Alai or Pelota Frontons, and authorizing the pledge of a sufficient amount of •such tax proceeds and such moneys so., received under the provisions of said •Chapters 550 and 551, Florida Statutes,
■to the payment of the principal of and interest on such certificates.”

Casual examination of the title dis■closes that it is more expansive than contemplated. If it had been no more than “An Act Relating to the Construction of Additions and Repairs to Court House and Jail in Santa Rosa County and to Provide Payment Therefor”, it would have been ■sufficient. The fact that it violates the rrule against verbosity does not render it invalid. Whitney v. Hillsborough County, 99 Fla. 628, 127 So. 486; Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d 799. As to whether Section 15 of Article III, condemning an act on the ground that the title contains more than one subject was violated, see State v. Pinellas County, 160 Fla. 549, 36 So.2d 216, and State v. County of Palm Beach, Fla., 89 So.2d 607, 611.

The second question presented is whether or not the published notice of intention to apply to the legislature for the passage of Chapter 57-1827 met the requirements of Section 21, Article III, of the Constitution of Florida. The notice complained of is as follows:

“Notice is hereby given of intention to apply for the introduction of a local or special bill and the enactment thereof into law at the current 1957 session of the Legislature of the State of Florida, to provide for financing court houses, jails and other public buildings and extensions thereto in Santa Rosa County and authorizing and empowering the governing body of Santa Rosa County for the purpose of erecting or repairing or adding to any court house, jail or other public county building, to issue certificates of indebtedness in anticipation of any public building tax levied-under Chapter 135.01, Florida Statutes, 1955 [F.S.A.], and in anticipation of the receipt by Santa Rosa County of any moneys under the provisions of Chapters 550 and 551, Florida Statutes, 1955 [F.S.A.], relating to race tracks and jai alai or pelota frontons, and authorizing the pledge of a sufficient amount of such tax proceeds and such moneys so received under the provisions of said Chapters 550 and 551, Florida Statutes, 1955 [F.S. A.], to the payment of the principal of and interest on such certificates.”

This notice was published in “The Press-Gazette”, a newspaper of general circulation published in Santa Rosa County. It was published as required by Section 11.02, *368Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and met all the requirements of Section 21, Article III of the Constitution. It was more than ample to give notice of the proposed legislation, so there is no merit to this contention.

The concluding question is whether or not the certificates were such as required an approving vote of the freeholders of the county under Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution of Florida.

Chapter 57-1827 provides that the certificates in question be payable solely from the proceeds of the tax authorized by Chapter 135, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and moneys distributed to Santa Rosa County from license taxes collected from race tracks and jai alai or pelota frontons under Chapters 550 and 551, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

We have previously pointed out that the act authorizing them and the certificates themselves provide that they shall not constitute a general obligation of Santa Rosa County nor shall the full faith and credit of the county or any tax revenues of the county, other than those provided therein, be pledged for the payment of them. State v. St. Johns County, Fla., 60 So.2d 530.

This court has consistently held that court houses and jails are essential to the existence of county government and do not have to be approved by a vote of the freeholders as required by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution. Tapers v. Richard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39; Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d 799; Sunshine Construction Co. of Key West v. Board of Commissioners, Monroe County, Fla., 54 So.2d 524; State v. Lafayette County, Fla., 55 So.2d 799; State v. Sumter County, Fla., 60 So.2d 529; State v. County of Dade, Fla., 92 So.2d 186; State v. Florida State Imp. Comm., Fla., 60 So.2d 747; Yon v. Orange County, Fla., 43 So.2d 177; State v. County of Manatee, Fla., 93 So.2d 381.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …thin the province of this court to say nay. Posey v. Wakulla County, supra; Prescott v. Board of Public Instruction, 1947, 159 Fla. 663, 32 So. 2d 731; State v. St. Johns County, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 530, and State v. County of Santa Rosa, Fla. 1958, 105 So. 2d 365, support this view. Experiments designed to restore a sagging economy to encourage the growing population to remain at home and build better schools, churches, roads and other institutions, to induce more people to come and make their homes in Suwan…
  • State v. Cnty. OF Dade, 234 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1970)
    …2) ; State v. Sumter County, 60 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1952) ; State v. St. Johns County, 60 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1952) ; State v. County of Palm Beach, 89 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1956) ; State v. County of Dade, 92 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1957); State v. County of Santa Rosa, 105 So. 2d 365 (Fla.1958) ; State v. Lee County, 121 So. 2d 788 (Fla.1960); Kearney v. County of St. Lucie, 126 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1961). . Mize v. County of Seminole, Florida, Fla., 229 So. 2d 841, opinion filed September 24, 1969. . 85 So. 2d 852, 855, 59 A.L.E.2…
    1 / 2
  • Vanner v. Goldshein, 216 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
    …ntly in Dabney v. Yapa, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 381. There, the landlord-lessor was held not liable for injuries caused by a condition over which he had no control. See also City of Daytona Beach v. Baker, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 804, cert. denied, 105 So. 2d 365, wherein the municipal corporation, in its status as a lessor of certain premises, was held not liable for damages caused by defects in those premises when the lessee was shown to be in possession, occupancy and control of same. In conclusion then,…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (13 total)

View all 13 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw