City of Jacksonville v. Smoot

92 So. 617, 83 Fla. 575
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 10, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 92 So. 617 (City of Jacksonville v. Smoot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Jacksonville v. Smoot, 92 So. 617, 83 Fla. 575 (Fla. 1922).

Opinion

Ellis, J.

L. D. Smott recovered a judgment against the City of Jacksonville on February 8th, 1921, for the sum of $2,805.00 for salary and interest therein claimed by him to be due by the city and which accrued to him as Commissioner of Public Works from August 15th, 1917, to the 1st day of January, 1918.

The city took a writ of error to the judgment. The case of Mr. Smoot is clearly set forth in the fifth count of the declaration as amended which is as follows: “5th. And for a further and fifth count, plaintiff further sues the defendant for that under and by an Act of the Legislature of the State of Florida, known as Chapter 6367, (6357) Laws 1911, the office of “Commissioner of Public Works” for the City of Jacksonville, was created, and in and by said Act the Board of Bond Trustees of the City of Jacksonville was authorized and directed to fix the term or period and the compensation or salary of said office; that under and by virtue of the authority in it vested and to it delegated, the said Board of Bond Trustees did fix the period or term of said office at one year and the salary thereof at six'thousand dollars per annum; and thereafter on or about the first day of January, 1917, the said plaintiff was elected to said office for a term or period of one year at a salary of six thousand dollars per annum; that the term for which plaintiff was elected began on the 1st day of January, 1917, and ended on December 31st, 1917; that plaintiff accepted said office and 'entered upon the duties thereof, and became the Commissioner of Public [578]*578Works of the City of Jacksonville for the said, term and at said salary, and he continued to perform the duties thereof until on or about the 31st day of July, A. D. 1917, at which time the defendant refused to suffer or permit the plaintiff to continue to perform the duties thereof, and the said defendant on or about said date attempted to abolish said office and has from said time refused to permit the plaintiff to perform the duties of said office, and has failed and refused to pay to the plaintiff the salary due to him as Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Jacksonville from the 15th day of August, A. D. 1917, to the 1st day of January, 1918, although the plaintiff being the Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Jacksonville, has at all times been ready, able and willing and has always offered to continue to perform the duties of said office to the end of his term and thereafter until his successor was elected and qualified, or until' the plaintiff should be removed from office; that plaintiff has never been removed from said office; that during said term, from August 15th, 1917, to January 1st 1918, no other person was elected to said office and no other person has filled or held or attempted to fill or hold said office. And plaintiff has been deprived of his salary by the defendant which he is entitled to as- Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Jacksonville from August 15th, 1917, to January 1st, 1918.

Wherefore, plaintiff brings this action and claims $5,000.00 damages.” The action was begun upon the theory that the plaintiff held a contract of employment with the city which the latter breached. When the parties reached an issue there was a trial and verdict for the plaintiff which was set aside and a new trial granted, thereupon the plaintiff amended his declaration by adding [579]*579two counts, the fourth and fifth, basing his action upon' his alleged right to receive the salary as incident to the public office to which he had been appointed. The first counts of the declaration were abandoned.

The city interposed several pleas, its principal defense being embodied in the seventh plea to the third count and made by apt words applicable to the fifth count of the declaration as amended, a demurrer to the plea was sustained.

The seventh plea was as follows: “And for a seventh plea to the third count of plaintiffs declaration, this defendant says that the plaintiff became Commissioner of Public 'Works by vote of the Board of Bond Trustees of the City of Jacksonville under authority vested in said Board of Bond Trastes by Section 5 of Chapter 63.75 (6357) of the Laws of Florida, Acts of 1911.

That the office described in the declaration which was held and acquired by plaintiff and which is the employment or position mentioned in said count of the declaration, was a public office, created by law, and the plaintiff as the holder of said office was not a mere servant or employee, but was a city official or office holder, the head of all municipal service departments, and the person in charge of the electric lighting, water service, and sewerage departments, under the direction of the Committee on Public Works, and plaintiff was responsible for the successful development and operation of every municipal service.

That plaintiff was chosen or selected for said position or public office by the said Board of Bond Trustees; that being an office holder and city official as aforesaid, and not a mere servant or employee, there was no eoiitractural [580]*580relation whatever between plaintiff and defendant, and the plaintiff had no vested right to his office of Commissioner of Public Works, that the compensation mentioned in said count of the declaration is the salary attached to said office as an incident thereto by operation of law and not by contract; that being an office-holder in a public office to which the salary attached by operation of law as an incident to the office the plaintiff was not entitled, to said compensation attached to said office, in the event that said office should be abolished, or that he should be legally removed therefrom.

That by Chapter 6357 of the Laws of Florida, it was provided that plaintiff should be appointed by the Board of Bond Trustees and that the duties devolving by virtue of said act upon the Commissioner of Public Works, should be carried on under the-direction of a Committee on Public Works created by said act.

That by Chapter 7659 of the Laws of Florida, the said Board of Bond Trustees, the Board of Health, the Committee on Public Works, the Board of Port Commissioners and each and every member and committee of said Boards were on the first Tuesday in July, 1917, abolished, and all of the powers and duties vested in each and every of said Boards and committees and members thereof were transferred to, vested in, and imposed upon the City Commission.

That in and by said'Act of the Legislature it was provided that the City Commission should have the exclusive power to employ such chiefs and heads of departments, foremen, engineers, clerks, superintendents, employees and laborers as it might deem necessary for the performance of its dutis and fix their compensation, and should [581]*581also elect all city officials not elected by tbe qualified electors, excepting only certain officials other than the plaintiff.

That in and by said act it was further provided that all officers, heads of departments and employees of said Boards and Committees so abolished should continue to hold and retain their offices and positions at the same rate of compensation as at that time prescribed until their successors were elected or appointed by the said City Commission.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 2004
City of Miami v. Carollo
748 So. 2d 397 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Metropolitan Dade County v. Floyd, Pearson, Richman, Greer, Weil, Zack & Brumbaugh
559 So. 2d 614 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. Fla. Nurses Ass'n
508 So. 2d 317 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority v. Metropolitan Dade County
503 So. 2d 1314 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Orr v. Trask
464 So. 2d 131 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Corn v. City of Oakland City
415 N.E.2d 129 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1981)
City of Miami v. Rodriguez-Quesada
388 So. 2d 258 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Longo v. City of Hallandale
42 Fla. Supp. 53 (Broward County Circuit Court, 1975)
City of Miami Beach v. Smith
251 So. 2d 290 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Hall v. Strickland
170 So. 2d 827 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1964)
State Ex Rel. Watson v. Crooks
15 So. 2d 675 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1943)
Faulk v. Allen
12 So. 2d 109 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1943)
Kelly v. Kane
94 P.2d 384 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Gibbs v. Couch
190 So. 723 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Landis v. O'Quinn
175 So. 769 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
City of Lake Alfred v. Lawless
135 So. 895 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 So. 617, 83 Fla. 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-jacksonville-v-smoot-fla-1922.