State Ex Rel. Davis v. Fowler

114 So. 435, 94 Fla. 752
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 21, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 114 So. 435 (State Ex Rel. Davis v. Fowler) 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. Davis v. Fowler, 114 So. 435, 94 Fla. 752 (Fla. 1927).

Opinion

Statement.

This is an original proceeding in quo warranto, designed to test the constitutionality of Chapter 10207, Acts of 1925, as amended by Senate Bill 113 of the Acts of 1927. By *754 authority of the Legislative Acts assailed, the respondents claim to constitute, and are exercising the functions of, “The Board of Plumbing Commissioners of the State of Florida,” and one of the respondents is also exercising “the office of State Plumbing Inspector” by virtue of the same authority. The petition, with the amendment thereto, specifies twelve grounds upon each of which it is claimed that the said Acts are unconstitutional and void.

The history of legislation relative to plumbers in Florida is as follows.- By Chapter 6944, Acts of 1915, it is provided that in every city of 10,000 inhabitants or more a Board of Examiners of Plumbers should be created, and that all persons engaged in the business of plumbing in such cities “either as a master plumber or employing plumber or as journeyman plumber shall first receive a certificate,” etc. Examinations are provided for and it is also stipulated that such cities shall provide rules for the construction and installation of plumbing. This Act was amended by Chapter 7312, Acts of 1917, and the above summary, more accurately speaking, is the effect of the first Act as amended. This law is found in the Revised General Statutes of 1920, Section 2251, et seq. In 1925, the Legislature, by Chapter 10207, undertook to amend the Acts of 1915 and 1917 (ignoring the fact that said Acts had been superseded by the Revised General Statutes) by creating a State Board in lieu of the city boards previously provided for, and a State Inspector, and authorizing said State Board “to establish, adopt, promulgate and put into effect a code governing the installation of plumbing” and to “make such rules and regulations * * * as it may consider necessary to the proper performance of its duties.” Also requiring all plumbers to obtain a certificate from said State Board and have the same renewed annually, paying therefor certain designated fees, and stipulating *755 that “any person receiving a license to engage in the plumbing business, as provided by this Act, may engage in such business in any and.all cities and towns in this State without the payment of any additional license fee, except in such towns as such person, or persons maintain an office.” Also “a certificate issued by the Board of Plumbing Commissioners shall be effective throughout the State of Florida.” The Board, as such, receives no salary, but is authorized to pay its own traveling expenses as well as the expenses of the plumbing inspector and deputy plumbing inspectors. By Section 10 of the Act, the office of State Plumbing Inspector is created. He is appointed by the Governor and holds for four years. His salary is fixed at $2,400 per annum, and by the amendment of 1927, it is provided that “the salary of the State Plumbing Inspector shall be fixed by the said Board of Plumbing Commissioners and shall not exceed $4,200.00, payable monthly by the said Board, etc. Also that “said Board of Plumbing Commissioners shall fix the duties of the State Plumbing Inspector and shall have the supervision of such officer.” The operations of the Board are financed by funds raised as follows: Each applicant for certificate to engage in the business of a master plumber must pay $25.00, and $10.00 for the renewal of the certificate on the 1st day of each year; the journeyman plumber must pay $5.00 for the original examination, and $3.00 for each annual renewal; also the commissioners are authorized “to charge and collect a fee of 50 cents for each and every waste opening on all plumbing work installed in the State of Florida, and an additional fee of $.25 for each fixture installed in connection with such plumbing work. All such fees shall be paid by the plumber at the time of application for a permit to do such work,” etc. No provision is made to safeguard the moneys so authorized to be raised. Such *756 funds are handled by the plumbing commissioners without let or hindrance, with no duty to account to any person, and without bond or other security. No part of the fund is ever conveyed into the State Treasury.

Demurrer to petition was filed.

Buford, J.,

after stating case:

The petition with the amendment thereto alleges twelve (12) grounds of attack upon each of which it is contended that the Act of the Legislature here under consideration is unconstitutional and void. It will not be needful to discuss more than two of the grounds of attack, though it may be that some of the objections contained in other grounds are as well founded as are those objections which we shall discuss. Section 16 of Article 3 of the Constitution of Florida is as follows:

“Each law enacted in the Legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title; and no law shall be amended or revised by reference to its title only; but in such case the Act, as revised, or section as amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length.” In State v. Burns, 38 Fla. 367, 21 Sou. 290, the Court say:

“Titles to bills must not be misleading or tend to avert inquiry as to provisions in Acts.”

In Webster v. Powell, 36 Fla. 703, 18 Sou. 441, referring to, this section of the Constitution, the Court say:

‘ ‘ One purpose of this section of the Constitution was to prevent fraud or surprise upon legislation by means of false and deceptive titles to bills calculated to mislead members of the Legislature into voting for bills containing provisions of which the title gives no information.”

*757 The Act under consideration violates Section 16 of Article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Florida in that the title of the Act is misleading and does not properly embrace the provisions found in the body of the Act. It appears from the title to the Act that it was the intention of the Legislature to amend Chapter 6944, Laws of BRa., Acts of 1915, as amended by Chapter 7312, Laws of Fla., Acts of 1917. These Acts both conferred powers on certain municipal corporations within the State to provide by ordinance, rules and regulations for the construction and maintenance of all plumbing or drainage placed in or on any buildings or the premises thereof and provide for the election of a plumbing inspector in such cities and provided for the creation of the examining board of plumbers in each of such municipal corporations. The corporations affected by the Acts of 1915 were those having a population of 10,000 or more and a system of water supply or sewerage. Those affected by the Acts of 1917 were the cities of 7,500 population or more.

There is nothing in the title of Chapter 10207, Acts of 1925, which indicates that the Board of Plumbing Commissioners is to be created thereby. There is nothing to indicate that the office of State Plumbing Inspector is to be thereby created, or that the Governor is to have authority to appoint such inspector.

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

Related

Barker v. State, Commission on Ethics
654 So. 2d 646 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Wells v. State
402 So. 2d 402 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
Clark v. State
395 So. 2d 525 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
Harrington & Co., Inc. v. Tampa Port Authority
358 So. 2d 168 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
D'ALEMBERTE v. Anderson
349 So. 2d 164 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1977)
Anderson v. D'Alemberte
334 So. 2d 618 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Erwin v. State
262 So. 2d 677 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)
Conner v. Joe Hatton, Inc.
216 So. 2d 209 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1968)
Lewis v. Florida State Board of Health
143 So. 2d 867 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Moore v. Thompson
126 So. 2d 543 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1960)
State v. Morton
84 S.E.2d 791 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1954)
State ex rel. Thompson v. Morton
84 S.E.2d 791 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1954)
Crandon v. Hazlett
26 So. 2d 638 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1946)
Robbins v. Webb's Cut Rate Drug Co.
16 So. 2d 121 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1943)
L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Mayo
196 So. 176 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Blitch v. City of Ocala
195 So. 406 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Kilgore Groves, Inc. v. Mayo, Commr. Agriculture
191 So. 498 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Bristol-Myers Co. v. Webb's Cut-Rate Drug Co., Inc.
188 So. 91 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board
183 So. 759 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Snively Groves, Inc. v. Florida Citrus Commission
23 F. Supp. 600 (N.D. Florida, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 So. 435, 94 Fla. 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-davis-v-fowler-fla-1927.