State Ex Rel. Howarth v. Jordan

140 So. 908, 105 Fla. 322
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedApril 22, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 140 So. 908 (State Ex Rel. Howarth v. Jordan) 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. Howarth v. Jordan, 140 So. 908, 105 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1932).

Opinion

Bueord, C.J.

This ease is before us on petition for writ of mandamus wherein it is sought by the Relator to compel the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Volusia County to accept filing fee of $18.00 to qualify the Relator as a candidate for the office of County Commissioner of Volusia County.

The petition shows that the Clerk of the Circuit Court is demanding of the Relator the sum of $54.00 as a filing fee to qualify for such office and that the Clerk of the Circuit Court is acting under the provisions of Chapter 14680, Laws of Fla., Acts of 1931, which fixes the salary of the county commissioners of Volusia County at $1800.00 per annum.

The Relator contends that the chapter above referred to is a Special Law fixing the salary of officers and that the same is in violation of section 20 of Article III of the Constitution of Florida because the General Law of *323 Florida fixes the saláries of county commissioners at $600.00 per annum.

Mandamus may not be invoked to require an officer to perform a certain act, unless it appears that it is clearly the duty of the officer to perform such act.

Chapter 14680, supra, purports to fix the salaries of the members of the Board of County Commissioners of Volusia County and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Volusia County is without authority to hold the Act inoperative or invalid. See State ex rel. A. C. L. R. R. Co. vs. The Board of Equalizers of Fla., 84 Fla. 592, 94 Sou. 681.

The petition of the Relator fails to show that he has such an interest in the subject matter of chapter 14680, supra, as to place him in the status of one having the right to contest the constitutionality of that Act.

For the reasons stated, the petition for mandamus should be denied and it is so ordered.

Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Brown, J., not participating.

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

Related

Smith v. Willis
415 So. 2d 1331 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
State Ex Rel. McGuirk v. Cowart
344 So. 2d 624 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
State Ex Rel. Haft v. Adams
238 So. 2d 843 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1970)
State ex rel. West v. Gray
70 So. 2d 471 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
Gaulden v. Kirk
47 So. 2d 567 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1950)
Steele v. Freel
25 So. 2d 501 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1946)
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Baker
21 N.W.2d 355 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1945)
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Doss
192 So. 870 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
State Ex Rel. First Presbyterian Church v. Fuller
182 So. 888 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Dowling v. W. R. Hodges & Son
179 So. 702 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
State Ex Rel. Ship Canal Authority v. Lancaster
170 So. 126 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
State Ex Rel. Hanna v. Lee
169 So. 220 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
State Ex Rel. Juvenal v. Neville
167 So. 650 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
City of Fort Meade v. State, Ex Rel.
162 So. 350 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
White v. Crandon
156 So. 303 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
State Ex Rel. Alderman v. Beville
144 So. 331 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 So. 908, 105 Fla. 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-howarth-v-jordan-fla-1932.