FRED P. CONE, GOVERNOR; J. M. LEE, COMPTROLLER; W. V. KNOTT, TREASURER; GEORGE COUPER GIBBS, ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND NATHAN MAYO, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, AS TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND,
v.
WAKULLA COUNTY

Fla. | 1940-08-02
Terrell, C. J., Brown, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur., Justice Buford not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
143 Fla. 880 Florida Supreme Court (1940) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 197 So. 536
Cited by 8 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

Wakulla County sued the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund seeking to establish a trust in state lands and funds from their sale, claiming the county and other taxing units had beneficial interests. The Florida Supreme Court held that such a suit is effectively a suit against the State without its consent and cannot be maintained, as the trustees lack statutory authority to disburse proceeds and the State retains title to the property.


Holding

The court held that the suit cannot be maintained because it is in legal effect a suit against the State without its consent. A trust relation and obligation of the State with respect to its property cannot be adjudicated in a suit against state officers who do not have title to the property but only authority to sell for cash and lack statutory authority to disburse the proceeds. Valid statutory authority and duty to disburse funds held in the state's name may be enforced only through appropriate judicial proceedings when authorized by statute.


Key Quotes

“since title to the lands is in the State of Florida and the defendant trustees have only authority to sell the lands to the highest and best bidder for cash, and as no authority is given the trustees or any other officers to disburse the proceeds from sales of the land by the trustees under the Murphy Act, this suit is in legal effect a suit against the State, and cannot be maintained”

Establishes the core holding that the suit is effectively against the State without consent when the State retains title and the trustees lack authority to disburse proceeds

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

Wakulla County brought suit against the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund (the Governor, Comptroller, Treasurer, Attorney General, and Commiss…

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
Whitfield, J.

Whitfield, J.

In a suit brought by the County of Wakulla against the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida, it is sought to have a trust decreed in favor of the county and other taxing units in the county, in the lands and in the funds arising from sales by such trustees of lands to which the State has the fee simple title, discharged of any right to redeem the lands, under Section 9 of the Murphy Act, Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937. Such title is predicated upon sales of the lands for nonpayment of taxes due the State, the county and other taxing units in the county. A motion to dismiss the bill of complaint was denied, and the defendant trustees have applied for an interlocutory writ of certiorari under Rule 34 to review the order denying the motion to dismiss.

A ground of the motion to dismiss the bill of complaint is that “Since this Court could enter no binding decree in the absence of the State of Florida which owns the title to the land involved, and since a county, as a subdivision of the State itself, could not maintain á suit against the State of Florida, there can be no possible basis for the maintenance of this suit.”

*882As the title to the lands is in the State of Florida and the defendant trustees have only authority to sell the lands to the highest and best bidder for cash, and as no authority is given the trustees or any other officers to disburse the proceeds from sales of the land by the trustees under the Murphy Act, this suit is in legal effect a suit against the State, and cannot be maintained to decree a trust in property held in the name of the State or to decree disbursements of proceeds of the land sales, in the absence of a statute duly enacted under Section 22, Article III, of the State Constitution, relating to suits against the State, when there is no statute authorizing the disbursement of the funds received from the land sales. See Section 4, Article IX, of the Constitution ; Cone v. King, 143 Fla. 323, 196 So. 697; So. Drainage Dist. v. State, 93 Fla. 672, 112 So. 561; Hampton v. State Bd. Education, 90 Fla. 88, 105 So. 323, 42 A. L. R. 1456, 59 C. J. 313; Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 133 U. S. 233, 10 Sup. Ct. 260, 33 L. Ed. 589; McWhorter v. Pensacola & Atlantic R. Co., 24 Fla. 417, 5 So. 129, 12 Am. St. Rep. 220, 2 L. R. A. 504. Valid statutory authority and duty to disburse funds held in the name of the State may be enforced in appropriate judicial proceedings. See Sec. 1004 ( 780) C. G. L.

In Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bailey, 10 Fla. 112, text 132, 81 Am. Dec. 194, the trustees had title to the lands and statutory authority to use and disburse the property of the fund. See Hampton v. State Bd. Education, supra.

If a suit cannot be maintained against the State affecting its property rights without its consent, an alleged trust relation and obligation of the State with reference to such property cannot be adjudicated in a suit brought against State officers who do not have title to the property but only *883authority to sell for cash, and no authority to disburse the proceeds of cash sales.

Even when a State is trustee for a public purpose, it cannot be sued without its consent. See Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, Section 128. See also authorities- cited in 10 A. L. R. 1388.

Section 1004 (780) C. G. L. 1927, and Perm. Supp. 1936, as amended by Section 1, Chapter 15918, Acts of 1933, provides for the disbursement of the proceeds of redemptions and sales of tax sale certificates and of tax deeds issued by clerks of the circuit court under Chapter 17457, Acts of 1935; but such Section 1004 has not by any statute been made to apply to sales of lands by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund under Section 9, Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937, the Murphy Act.

A writ of certiorari is ordered to be issued, and thereupon the order denying the motion to dismiss the bill of complaint is quashed.

It is so ordered.

Terrell, C. J., Brown, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.

Justice Buford 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

  • Suits v. Hillsborough Cnty., 147 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1941)
    …receipts, together with the money due the State, and shall file with the Board of County Commissioners a report showing the amount of money collected and disposition thereof in detail.” It, therefore, follows, as was held in Cone v. Wakulla County, 143 Fla. 880, 197 Sou. 536, that Section 1004, supra, did not authorize disbursements of funds accruing from sale of lands by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund under authority of Section 9 of Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937, the Murphy Act. To the same…
  • Wakulla Cnty. v. Cone, 143 Fla. 879 (Fla. 1940)
    …Per Curiam. The order denying a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint in the case of Cone v. Wakulla County, [*880] 197 So. 536, this day filed, of which this case is a component part, having been quashed on interlocutory writ of certiorari under Rule 34 of the Supreme Court Rules, the application for such a certiorari in this case to review an order granting a motion to str…
  • Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Collins, 234 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1956)
    …dingly Modified and affirmed. . Constituted under Title 17, § 253.02, of the Statutes of the State of Florida. . Compare State ex rel. Board of Sup’rs of South Florida Conservancy Dist. v. Warren, Fla., 57 So. 2d 337, with Cone v. Wakulla County, 143 Fla. 880, 197 So. 536.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw