State Ex Rel. Bocher v. Hammons

184 So. 145, 134 Fla. 655
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 26, 1938
StatusPublished

This text of 184 So. 145 (State Ex Rel. Bocher v. Hammons) 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
State Ex Rel. Bocher v. Hammons, 184 So. 145, 134 Fla. 655 (Fla. 1938).

Opinion

Buford, J.

This case is before us on motion to quash amended alternative writ of mandamus.

The allegations of the amended alternative writ show that the relator was appointed on the 1st day of April, 1936, under the provisions of Sec. 20 of Chapter 14650, Acts of 1931, to be a member of the State Board of Barber Examiners of the State of Florida, and from the date of his'appointment until the 30th day of September, 1937, served in such capacity. That Sec. 21 of Chapter 14650, supra, is as follows:

“Section 21. The Board shall elect a President and a Secretary. The Secretary may or may not be a member of the Board. The Board shall maintain its headquarters in Tallahassee, and at its own expense. The Board shall adopt and use a common seal for the authentication of its orders and records. The Secretary shall keep a- record of all proceedings of the Board.
“The Secretary -shall give to the State a bond in the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars, with sufficient sureties, to be approved by the Board for the faithful performance of his duties. A majority of the Board in meeting duly assembled may perform and exercise all the duties and powers devolving upon the Board.
“Each member of the Board shall receive a compensation of Ten ($10.00) Dollars per day for each day, or fraction thereof, actually spent in performing any duty required of him under the direction of the Board in the performance of its official duties and shall be reimbursed for his necess’ary traveling expenses incurred in the discharge of his duty. The Secretary shall receive an additional Two ($2.00) Dollars per day. Both salary and expenses are to be paid only *657 from the fund created by fees collected in the administration of this' Act. The Board shall report annually to the Governor a full statement of its work during the year, together with such recommendation as it may deem expedient.
“The Board shall have authority to employ such special counsel, clerks and other assistants as it may deem necessary to carry out the provisions' of this Act.”

And that the relator is entitled to receive a salary of $10.00 per day or fraction thereof actually spent in performing the duties required of him under the provisions of that Act and that the relator did perform from the date of his appointment on April 1st, 1936, until the date of his dismissal, September 30, 1937, with the exception of the month of June, 1936, and spent all of his time during the working hours of each day of said period in performing the duties required of him as a member of the State Board of Barber Examiners under the provisions of Chapter 14650, supra.

It alleges that relator was not paid and did not receive the sum of $10.00 per day in accordance with the requirements of the statute.

It was alleged that under the provisions of Section 21, supra, relator is entitled to be paid the sum of $1885.00; that he had demanded that respondents, members of the State Board of Barber Examiners, order and approve his claim for back salary.

It alleges that there are sufficient funds acquired under the provision of Sec. 22 of the Act to pay his salary.

The motion to quash contains the following grounds:

“ (3) That the amended writ fails' to show that the duties • alleged to have been performed by the relator were properly authorized by the board or that they were performed under the direction of the board in its performance of its official duties.
“(4) That the allegations in the amended alternative *658 writ do not affirmatively show that the board ever adopted and used a common seal for the authentication of its orders and records as required by law or that said seal was placed upon any orders given the relator herein by the Board of Barber Examiners.
“(5) That the amended writ fails' to allege that the Secretary kept a record of the proceedings of the board that could be produced before the court in order that the court might determine whether the relator was working under the direction of the Board in the performance of its official duties.
“(6) That the amended writ alleges that the board in open session determined it to be necessary that by and through its members and employees that it must perform certain duties, but fails to affirmatively show that the Section of the Barber Law as compiled and which is set out as follows, to-wit:
“ ‘That a majority of the Board in meeting assembled may perform and exercise all the duties and powers devolving upon the board.’
“(7) That the amended writ fails to allege that the duties which the relator alleges he performed on each day or fraction thereof were actually spent in the performance of any duty required of him by the board in the performance of his regular duties, but alleges that he performed such duties as a member of the board in the performance of its official duties, and not that such duties were performed under the direction of the board.
“(8) That the amended writ fails to allege that the relator herein ever attended any of the regular meetings or special meetings of tlie board or made any reports to the board, or that his acts and doings in his behalf were ever approved by the board or that he was directed by the board to perform certain duties under its direction.
*659 “(9) That the amended alternative writ of Mandamus does not affirmatively show the amount that the relator received each month while acting as a member of the Board, or that he made demand for the amount which he claims during any year that he served as a member of the board.
“(10) That the alternative writ of mandamus shows on its face that the Board of Barber Examiners could not be authorized under the Barber Laws to audit and approve the claim of the relator, which section of the law is' set out as follows, to-wit:
“ ‘Such fund shall be expended in accordance with law for all necessary and proper expenses in carrying out the provisions of this chapter upon proper claim approved by said board, or a finance committee thereof, and is hereby annually appropriated for such purpose.’
“Under this section of the law if the relator is required to recover, demand should only be made for the amount due the fiscal year.
“(11) That the allegations in said amended alternative writ does not state or constitute a cause of action that authorizes or entitles the relator to the remedy sought and mentioned in said alternative writ of Mandamus or the relief prayed in said Alternative Writ.
“(12) The facts stated in said amended alternative writ are not sufficient to entitle the relator to the demands' made upon the respondents in the amended alternative writ.
“(13) Said amended alternative writ fails to show a sum definite that the relator has been paid.”

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 So. 145, 134 Fla. 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bocher-v-hammons-fla-1938.