THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
v.
THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, LAKE 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 State Board of Education sued Lake County's Board of Public Instruction to recover $20,000 borrowed in 1928 through time warrants that were never repaid. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's dismissal, holding that the loan statute was constitutional and enforceable, and that Lake County could not challenge the law's validity.
The Court reversed the dismissal, holding that the statute was constitutional and valid, and that Lake County was not in a position to challenge the statute's validity. The Court also noted that even if the statute were invalid, the loan involved State School Funds which the Constitution mandates remain "sacred and inviolate," and Lake County had a responsibility to ensure this constitutional mandate was not violated.
“The act is comprehensive in its terms and authorizes any indebtedness incurred under it to be paid from the County School Fund. It has been upheld by this Court and nothing said at this time convinces us of its invalidity.”
Establishes the Court's validation of the statute authorizing the loan.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1928, Lake County's Board of Public Instruction borrowed $20,000 from the State Board of Education to pay outstanding indebtedness, evidenc…
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 Constitutionality Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
In January, 1928, the Board of Public Instruction of Lake County borrowed $20,000.00 from the State Board of Education for the purpose of paying its outstanding indebtedness. To evidence this indebtedness, the borrower executed twenty time warrants payable one year from date, bearing interest at 6 per cent. The interest was paid for two years and discontinued. Nothing' has since been paid on principal or interest.
In’ February, 1938, the State Board of Education instituted this action against the Board of Public Instruction *769of Lake County to recover the amount due on the said warrants. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained and this appeal was prosecuted.
It is admitted that the warrants drawn in question were regular and legal on their face, that the money was received by the Board and used for the purposes stated and that no part of it has been repaid but it is' now contended that the act under which the warrants were issued was unconstitutional and void in that the warrants show on their face that they are to be paid from the future revenue of the Board of Public Instruction and for other reasons. Barrow v. Moffett, 95 Fla. 111, 116 So. 71, is relied on to support this contention.
The warrants were issued and the loan was Secured pursuant to Chapter 8548, Acts of 1921, now Section 569, Compiled General Laws of 1927. The purpose of this Act was to enable boards of public instruction to liquidate any outstanding indebtedness then due by them for labor, salaries, supplies, or other public school purposes. The act is comprehensive in its terms and authorizes any indebtedness incurred under it to be paid from the County School Fund. It has been upheld by this Court and nothing said at this time convinces us of its invalidity. State Bank of Bowling Green v. Board of Public Instruction of Hardee County, 116 Fla. 184, 156 So. 319.
We do not see that Barrow v. Moffett, supra, is at all pertinent to this case. The philosophy bade of that case was to require boards of public instruction to keep their annual operating expenses' within their anticipated revenues. It; in effect, inhibited them from borrowing next year’s anticipated revenues to operate the schools this year. The act under which the loan was secured enabled all boards of public instruction to husband their outstanding obligations and when done, they were to be anticipated and taken care *770of in the annual budget as other obligations were taken care of.
Even if the Act was infected with the vice of invalidity, appellee is not in position to raise the question it relies on. Besides, the loan in this case was from the State School Fund which the Constitution ordains shall remain sacrecl and inviolate. (Section 5, Article XII.) No contract can overcome this mandate and no one has a greater responsibility than appellee in seeing that it is not done.
The judgment below is reversed.
Reversed.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927. - and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 48 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1950)…9, Article 12 of the Constitution of Florida. The same authorities to sustain the view were cited and relied upon as were cited in the Dade County validation suit. The case of State Board of Education v. Board of Public Instruction of Lake County, 138 Fla. 767, 190 So. 253, involved twenty interest bearing time warrants issued by the Board of Public Instruction of Lake County under Chapter 8548, Acts of 1921. The money was borrowed and used for the purpose of paying the outstanding indebtedness of the Boa…
-
State v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 143 Fla. 212 (Fla. 1940)…cases like this one in State v. Board of Public Instruction, Dade County, 126 Fla. 142, 170 So. 602, in which latter case original bonds had been issued for school purposes and were to be refunded. See also State Board v. County Board of Pub. Inst., 138 Fla. 767, 190 So. 253; Board Pub. Inst., Pinellas Co. v. State ex rel. Beers, 127 Fla. 211, 172 So. 922. In Barrow v. Moffett, supra, the suit was to validate original bonds proposed to be issued. This Court reversed a decree of validation because it did no…
Authorities Cited
- Barrow v. Moffett, 95 Fla. 111 (Fla. 1928)
- State Bank of Bowling Green v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction for Hardee Cnty., 116 Fla. 184 (Fla. 1934)
- State v. Knott, 116 Fla. 184 (Fla. 1934)