E. A. LATHAM, BEN D. THURSBY, PETER GESSNER, W. M. HANKINS AND JOHN GRAHAM, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF VOLUSIA COUNTY,
v.
I. WALTER HAWKINS, AS CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF VOLUSIA COUNTY; D. F. SMITH, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF VOLUSIA COUNTY; AND J. E. PEACOCK, AS COUNTY JUDGE OF 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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a lower court's declaration that a 1931 statute limiting county officer compensation to $5,000 annually in counties of 35,000-45,000 population violated Florida's constitutional requirement that laws regulating county officer fees be general and uniformly applicable throughout the state. The court held that singling out one county for different compensation rules, even under a population classification, violates the uniformity requirement.
The court affirmed the lower court's decision that the statute is unconstitutional. The statute violates the constitutional requirement that laws regulating county officer fees be general and of uniform operation throughout the state because it results in different compensation for the same officers in similarly situated counties and fails to provide adequate constitutional basis for distinguishing Volusia County from other counties.
“It is shown that Chapter 15608, while potentially applicable to a class of counties, is at present applicable to Volusia County only, and results in the payment of a different compensation to officers in that county from that paid the same officers in other counties similarly situated.”
Establishes that the statute's practical effect is to single out one county for different treatment, violating uniformity requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Legislature enacted Chapter 15608 in 1931, which limited compensation of county officers in counties with 35,000-45,000 population to $5,000 per a…
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 Legislature of 1931 enacted Chapter 15608, Laws of Florida, the primary purpose of which was-to limit the compensation of county officers in counties of. not less than 35,000 nor more than 45,000 population to $5,000.00 per annum. Appellees, who are the county officers of Volusia County,, affected by the Act, ignored its provisions and compensated themselves as provided in the general law for compensating county officers, Chapter 11954, Acts of 1927, Section 2865, Compiled General Laws of 1927. Appellants demanded that appellees comply with Chapter 15608, but appellees refused and filed their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Volusia County seeking to restrain appellants from attempting to enforce said Act. A motion to dismiss and an answer to the bill of complaint raised the sole question of the constitutional validity of Chapter 15608. The chancellor held it to be in violation of Section 20 of Article 3 of the Constitution and enjoined its enforcement against appellees. This appeal is from that' decree.
Section 20 of Article 3 enumerates specific inhibitions against the passage of local or special laws, one of which inhibitions appertains to the “jurisdiction and duties of any class of officers, except municipal officers,” and another to “regulating the fees of officers of the State and County. Section 21 of Article 3 commands that as to every inhibition enumerated in Section 20 of Article 3, all laws shall be “general and of uniform operation throughout the State.”
The interpretation of both statutory and constitutional *326provisions may be controlled by their practical operation and effect. It is shown that Chapter 15608, while potentially applicable to a class of counties, is at present applicable to Volusia County only, and results in the payment of a different compensation to officers in that county from that paid the same officers in other counties similarly situated. In other words, it affects the same officers in similar situations differently and in that respect departs from the constitutional requirements of uniformity.
Chapter 15608 does not attempt a general classification of the counties of the State on some reasonable basis for the purpose of regulating the fees of county officers. This Court has repeatedly recognized classification based on population as proper and reasonable, but when making classifications that must be “general and of uniform operation throughout the State” as a basis for the salaries of county officers, other elements besides population must enter into the classification.
It is not permissible for the Legislature to single out the officers of one county and under the guise of population or on any other basis of classification impose conditions on them different in effect and operation from others similarly situated throughout the State.
In State v. Sheppard, 84 Fla. 206, 93 So. 667; State v. Watkins, 88 Fla. 392, 102 So. 347; Flood v. State, 100 Fla. 70, 129 So. 851, and other cases of like import, we held that classifications to regulate the compensation of county officers in addition to being based on population must be influenced by other elements such as a prescribed portion of net income from the office and that when made, the classification should operate alike on all similarly situated.
If the Act under review is permitted to stand, then the Legislature can single out every county in the 'State and *327under the guise of a local law fix the compensation of county officers, arbitrarily and without' reference to the organic mandate. General uniformity and operation would be destroyed and caprice substituted as a basis for determining the compensation of county officers. This should be done by general law treating the whole subject matter.
In our view the decree of the chancellor was correct and is hereby affirmed. Knight v. Board of Public Instruction, 102 Fla. 922, 136 So. 631; State v. O’Quinn, 114 Fla. 222, 154 So. 166; Stribling v. Thomas, 101 Fla. 1015; 132 So. 824; Jordan v. State, 100 Fla. 494, 129 So. 747.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waybright v. Duval Cnty., 142 Fla. 875 (Fla. 1940)…rt being evenly divided in opinion as to the legality of the classification of counties with not less than 43,000 population and not more than 53,000 population. See also The Soviet Co. v. State ex rel., 136 Fla. 179, 186 So. 671; Latham v. Hawkins, 121 Fla. 324, 163 So. 709. Of the sixty-seven counties in the State of Florida, the three largest in population, by the State census of 1935, are [*900] Dade 180,998, Duval 175,204, Hillsborough 159,208. The next largest county in population is Polk having 82,1…
-
State v. Cone, 130 Fla. 158 (Fla. 1937)…ally enacted in accordance with Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution as amended in 1928, because no notice of intention to apply for passage of same appears to have been given, as required by organic law.” In the case of Latham v. Hawkins, 121 Fla. 324, 163 So. 709, we held that a statute limiting the compensation of officers of counties having from 35,000 to 45,000 population, thereby affecting only one county, was a local or special law. In the opinion in that case, which was written by Mr. Just…
-
Cnty. of Manatee v. Davidson, 132 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1938)…not this Act is a general Act and of uniform operation throughout the state, as required by the Constitution. This court has repeatedly held similar statutes to be unconstitutional. See Barrow v. Smith, 119 Fla. 468. 158 So. 818; Latham v. Hawkins, 121 Fla. 324, 163 So. 709; Stripling v. Thomas, 132 So. 824, 101 Fla. 1015; State, ex rel. Juvenal, v. Neville, 123 Fla. 745, 167 So. 650; Jordan, as Clerk, et al., v. State, ex rel., 100 Fla. 494, 129 So. 747. In the case of Latham v. Hawkins, supra, this Cour…
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
- State of Fla. ex rel. Rivers H. Buford v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1922)
- Sam'l D. Jordan v. State, 100 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1930)
- Sessions v. State, 132 So. 694 (Fla. 1931)
- Flood v. State Ex Rel. Bd. Co. Comr's., 129 So. 861 (Fla. 1930)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Rivers H. Buford v. Watkins, 88 Fla. 392 (Fla. 1923)
- Knight v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction for the Cnty. of Hillsborough, 102 Fla. 922 (Fla. 1931)
- State Ex Rel. Maxwell Hunter, Inc. v. O'Quinn, 154 So. 166 (Fla. 1934)
- Sattler v. Beachland Dev. Co., 102 Fla. 916 (Fla. 1931)