STATE, EX REL. MARION E. WALKER, MAYOR, TOWN OF HOLLY HILL; ET AL.,
v.
A. W. BEST, CLERK OF THE TOWN OF HOLLY HILL, VOLUSIA COUNTY
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.
A mandamus petition sought to compel a town clerk to sign, post, and publish notice of a charter amendment and special election. The Florida Supreme Court denied the writ because insufficient time remained to comply with statutory publication requirements before the November 5th election date.
The court denied the peremptory writ and quashed the alternative writ because the statutory publication requirement of four successive weeks with first publication at least twenty-five days before the election could not be met, and courts will not mandate performance of futile or nugatory acts. The court declined to address whether the charter board had authority to amend the special charter, as the procedural impossibility rendered the issue moot.
“It is well settled that the courts will not, by mandamus, command an officer to perform a futile and nugatory act; nor one which he has not the legal power to perform at the time the petition is filed or the writ granted.”
Establishes the governing principle that mandamus cannot compel impossible or futile acts, the basis for denying relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Holly Hill's charter board, acting under Chapter 6940 (the municipal home rule Act), proposed an amendment to the town charter to change t…
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 purpose of this mandamus proceding, which was begun by filing of petition in this Court on Octpber 19, 1935, is to compel the respondent, A. W. Best, Town Clerk of the Town of Holly Hill, Volusia County, to sign, post and publish a copy of an amendment to Section 10 of the town charter, set out in the petition, together with *305a notice of the special election to be held on November 5th, 1935, which election had been called by the charter board which had been organized and acting under the provisions of Chapter 6940 of the Acts of 1915, and to take certain steps in connection with preparations for said election.
An alternative writ was granted to which said Town Clerk promptly filed a motion to quash, upon the ground tha1 the said charter board, in attempting to amend a certain section of the town charter, had acted without lawful authority, in that said town charter, had been granted by a special Act of the Legislature, being Chapter 9775 of the Acts of 1923, and that special Act could not be changed or amended by any action taken under said Chapter 6940, frequently referred to as the municipal “home rule” Act. As the amendment proposed only effected a change in the date of holding the biennial municipal election of Mayor and concilmen as fixed in Section 10 of Chapter 9775, the town charter Act, and matters incidental thereto, such as a provision that the terms of such elective officers now holding office should expire December 31, 1935, and fixing the terms of such officers as should be elected in December, 1935, and their successors, and as it appears that the proposed amendment related only to the form and method of carrying on the town government without attempting to add to the municipal powers already vested in the municipality by the special charter Act, it may well be that this ground of the motion to quash is not well taken. Section 1 of said Chapter 6940 provides that the Act shall apply to “every town and city in the State of Florida, whether incorporated by a special Act or under the general laws of the State relating to cities and towns.”
But it is not necessary, nor perhaps appropriate, for us' to here determine the question above referred to, because the *306answer filed by the tow-n clerk, as well as the facts stated in the petition, show that it is now too late for the town clerk to effectively and legally carry out the commands of the alternative writ, as the election has been called for November 5, 1935, which, at this writing, (October 21, two days after writ granted and return filed) is only fifteen days off, whereas Section 11 of said Chapter 6940 provides that the clerk of the council “shall have said proposed charter or charter amendments, together with a notice of the election, published in a newspaper published in such city or town once a week for four successive weeks next preceding said election, the first publication thereof to. be not less than twenty-five days prior thereto;” etc. To obtain legally effective action under Chapter 6940, its procedural requirements must be complied with.
It is well settled that the courts will not, by mandamus, command an officer to perform a futile and nugatory act; nor one which he has not the legal power to perform at the time the petition is filed or the writ granted.
It appearing that there is not, under the statute, sufficient time remaining for the publication and posting required to be done by the town clerk by Section 11 of Chapter 6940, peremptory writ will be denied and the alternative writ quashed.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Davis, J., concur.
Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Migliore v. The City OF Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…ate the officers’ reputations, under appropriate circumstances, their remedy is damages and back pay but not reinstatement. Neither mandamus nor injunctive relief is available to require the performance of a futile act. State ex rel. Walker v. Best, 121 Fla. 304, 163 So. 696 (1935); Smith v. Davis, 22 Fla. 405 (1806). The proposition that requiring a hearing by a complaint review board at this late date would be a futile act is reinforced by our view, taken in an earlier case, that such a board may only rec…
-
Doyle Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…ent to subject him to mandamus proceedings. If, after remand, the trial court requires performance by Conner of acts outside the scope of his authority, that matter would be appropriate for further appellate review. See State ex rel. Walker v. Best, 121 Fla. 304, 163 So. 696 (Fla.1935). We turn, therefore, to that portion of the petition which seeks a writ of certio-rari. Here Conner urges us to find that since mandamus is an original proceeding, the procedures set forth in rule 1.630, Florida Rules of Civ…
-
State ex rel. Bergin v. Dunne, 71 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1954)…8 So. 531. It will not lie. to compel the parties, against whom it is, directed t.o-do a vain or useless thing. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Magwood, 111 Fla. 190, 149 So. 29; McAlpin v. State, 155 Fla. 33, 19 So. 2d 420; State ex rel. Walker v. Best, 121 Fla. 304, 163 So. 696. It will not issue in order to enable the person in whose behalf it is sought to effect or accomplish an illegal purpose. State ex rel. Edwards v. County Commissioners of Sumter Co., 22 Fla. 1. See also 34 Am.Jur., Mandamus, secs. 36, 3…
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