STATE, EX REL. J. H. JUVENAL,
v.
F. L. NEVILLE, AS CHAIRMAN, ET AL.
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 former Broward County Commissioner sought mandamus to recover additional salary under an 1927 Act, claiming the 1933 Act under which he was paid was unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court held both Acts invalid due to unconstitutional classifications and local application, and denied the mandamus petition because county officers have no duty to pay funds under facially unconstitutional legislation.
Both the 1933 Act and the 1927 Act are invalid: the 1927 Act violates the Florida Constitution as an impermissible local law, and the 1933 Act lacks reasonable basis for its county classification. A peremptory writ of mandamus cannot issue because the Board has no clear duty to pay funds under facially unconstitutional legislation.
“It is not the duty of an administrative officer, to pay out public funds in compliance with a purported legislative Act which on its face is clearly violative of the Constitution.”
Establishes that officers have no duty to expend public funds under facially unconstitutional legislation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelator served as a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Broward County during 1934 and received salary at $125 per month under Chapter 1597…
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.
This case is before us on response or return to alternative writ of mandamus and motion to issue peremptory writ of mandamus, notwithstanding the return.
The relator, as shown by the record, was a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Broward County, Florida, during the year of 1934 and for the months from January to December, inclusive, he was paid salary at the rate of One Hundred Twenty-five ($125.00) Dollars per month under provisions of Chapter 15972, Acts of 1933. Pie now claims and here seeks to enforce the payment to him of an additional $25.00 for each month served during the year 1934, under provision of Chapter 11920, Acts of 1927. The claim is based upon the theory that Chapter 15972, supra, is unconstitutional and void because there is no reasonable basis for the classification of counties for the purposes of that Act. The Act by its terms is made to apply to all counties having a population of not less than 19,000 nor more than 22,000, according to the last Federal census.
We hold that the Act referred to is invalid for the reasons stated.
*747We also hold that Chapter 11920, Acts of 1927, is equally invalid as a general law because of like infirmities and that the constitutional provisions were not complied with so as to make it a valid local law, under authority of Anderson v. Board of Public Instruction of County of Hillsborough, 102 Fla. 695, 136 Sou. 334, and cases there cited.
The 1927 Act, being local in its application, violates Section 20, Article III of the Constitution.
It is contended that the Respondents could not question the validity of the 1927 Act and that as officers they are bound to comply with it until it has been held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. This contention is based upon the opinion and judgment in the cases of State, ex rel. A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. State Board of Equalizers, 84 Fla. 592, 94 Sou. 681; and State, ex rel. Howarth, v. Jordan, 105 Fla. 322, 140 Sou. 908. Neither of these cases is applicable where the officer contesting the validity of the Act is by the terms of the Act required to pay out public funds. In such cases the officer has an interest in the subject matter which will warrant his appealing to the courts to determine whether or not the Act questioned is a constitutional provision requiring him to pay out public money. It is not the duty of an administrative officer, to pay out public funds in compliance with a purported legislative Act which on its face is clearly violative of the Constitution. Mandamus may not be invoked to require an officer to perform a certain act unless it appears that it is clearly the duty of the officer to perform the act. State, ex rel. Howarth, v. Jordan, supra.
As it is not made to appear that it is clearly the duty of the Board of County Commissioners to pay the Relator the sums of money claimed by him, the peremptory writ of mandamus will be denied and the cause dismissed.
*748So ordered.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment. Brown and Daivs, J. J., concur in the conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cnty. of Manatee v. Davidson, 132 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1938)…his 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 Court was dealing with a similar statute, Chapter 15608, laws of Florida, 1931, and in the opinion of the court writ…
-
Lewis v. Judge Chas. C. Mathis, Jr., 345 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1977)…ly populated areas have a higher divorce rate, In Re Rouse, 66 So. 2d 42 (Fla.1953). A legislative classification based upon population must have a reasonable basis for the classification to be held constitutional. State ex rel. Juvenal v. Neville, 123 Fla. 745, 167 So. 650 (1936); Levine v. Bailey, 124 Fla. 241, 168 So. 12 (1936); Waybright v. Duval County, 142 Fla. 875, 196 So. 430 (1940); Vance v. Ruppel, 215 So. 2d 309 (Fla.1968). The classification based upon population must also be potentially applic…
-
State v. Chairman, 129 Fla. 588 (Fla. 1937)…State of Florida; J. M. Lee as Comptroller and Secretary of Board of Administration, W. V. Knott as State Treasurer and County Treasurer ex officio of Washington County, Florida, filed at this Term of the Court. See also State, ex rel., v. Neville, 123 Fla. 745, 167. So. 650, Coppedge, et al., v. State, 99 Fla. 358, 127 So. 319. The above enunciation is sound, although we recognize the rule to be that before any legislative Act can be judicially declared unconstitutional, its repugnance to' the Constituti…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anderson v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction for the Cnty. of Hillsborough, 102 Fla. 695 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. The Bd. of Equalizers of the State of Fla., 84 Fla. 592 (Fla. 1922)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Casper Howarth v. Saml. D. Jordan, 105 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1932)
- State v. Burton Barrs, 105 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1932)