State ex rel. Swearingen v. Jones

84 So. 84, 79 Fla. 56
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 26, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 84 So. 84 (State ex rel. Swearingen v. Jones) 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. Swearingen v. Jones, 84 So. 84, 79 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1920).

Opinion

Browne, C. J.

This is a case of original jurisdiction. An information in the nature of a gao wa/rra/nto was filed in' this court by the Attorney General against W. G. Brorein, John B. Jones, J. J. Logan, W. A. MacWilliams and J. M. Burguieres, charging them with enjoying, exercising and performing the powers, duties and functions of officers of the State of Florida, without legal authority or warrant, and in violation of the Constitution of the Slate of Florida.

The information in part alleges that Chapter 7921, Acts of the-Legislature of the State of Florida, approved June 9, 1919, created a commission to be known as the Florida Purchase Centennial Commission, to consist of five members, who are designated in the Act, viz a W. G. Brorein, W. A. Blount, O. M. Cooper, W. A. MacWilliams and George W. Allen, and that by authority of Sec. 3 of the Act, the Commission elected John B. Jones, vice W. A. Blount, resigned; J. J. Logan, vice C. M. Cooper resigned, and J. M. Burguieres, vice George W. Allen, resigned. Answers were filed by all the respondents, but [58]*58that of J. M. B.urguieres was not filed until after the return day, and after the Attorney General had filed a demurrer to the answers of John B. Jones, W. G. Brorein, J .J. Logan and W. A. MacWilliams. As all the answers are substantially to the same effect, the demurrer will be treated as reaching them all. Each respondent admits the allegations of the information, and says that he exercises, enjoys and performs the functions, duties, powers and franchises of a member of the Florida Purchase Centennial Committee, by virtue of Chapter 7921 of the Acts of the Legislature, approved June 7, 1919.

The demurrer attacks the sufficiency of these answers as failing to set up any valid title to the rights, privileges, powers and franchises now enjoyed and exercised by them, because such rights, privileges, powers and franchises are those of officers of the State of Florida, and that the Act uncier which the respondents claim to exercise their powers is unconstitutional and void.

The issue presented by the pleadings makes it necessary for us to determine if the members of the Florida Purchase Centennial Commission are State officers, and if so are the respondents holding their respective offices under a legal and constitutional appointment and authority.

It is unnecessary to go into an extended discussion of the question of what is the test of a public office as this has been fully discussed and decided by this court in State ex rel. Clyatt v. Hocker, 39 Fla. 477, 22 South. Rep. 721; Advisory Opinion to Governor (In re Members of the Legislature), 19 Fla. 269, 39 South. Rep. 63; State ex rel. Holloway v. Sheats, decided at the last term of this court.

[59]*59Applying those tests to Chapter 7921, we are satisfied that the Florida Purchase Centennial Commissioners are State officers. It is time that they lack some of the characteristics' that usually distinguish ¡officers tf'rom agents or employees, hut it is not necessary for the office to have all of these characteristics. Some of the minor or less important ones may be missing and yet the essential one — that some part of the sovereign power of the State has been delegated to them or that they exercise distinctly governmental functions be present. Such is the condition here.

The statute in question confers large, and within the scope of the puprose of their creation, almost unlimited poAvers of a distinctly governmental character upon the commissioners.

They are given authority to proAÚde and determine their OAvn method of procedure and rules of order; they are authorized “to employ such chiefs, heads of departments, officers, foremen, engineers, superintendents, clerks, secretaries, employees and laborers, as it may deem necessary for the performance of its duties, and fix their compensation, and remove them from office or employment or reinstate them in office or employment at-its sole will and pleasure.”

They are “vested with full and complete poAver to undertake, inaugurate, create, perfect, complete, supervise, manage, control, regulate and direct an International Exposition, Avhich is hereby authorized to be held in the State of Florida dedicated on July 16th, 1921, and inaugurated on Victory Day, November 11th, 1922, in commemoration of the Florida Purchase Centennial, at such point in the State of Florida as said commission may select.’

[60]*60They are “fully authorized to represent and act for the State of Florida in asking for, receiving and handling such appropriations by the United States Congress as said' Congress of the United States may make, appropriate, grant or allow toward or in aid of the International Fair heretofore mentioned in this Act, and said Commission is fully authorized to ask for, receive and accept such appropriations, upon such terms and conditions as it may deem necessary or proper; and the said commission is hereby authorized to go in person or by their duly appointed representative before the United States Congress for the purpose of seeking- and requesting appropriations for said International Fair.”

They are “authorized to delegate any corporation that may hereafter be created in this State and under its laws for financing and administering or carrying on such International Exposition any and all of the powers granted to said commission by this Act; and in the event that a corporation is created under the general incorporation law of this State for the purpose of financing, administering and carrying on of the said International Exposition, said commission shall have power to turn over to such corporation any funds received by said commission from the United States and from individual and corporate subscriptions or otherwise.”

Section 0 of the Act appropriates $10,000 “for the purpose of defraying and paying the general expenses of said commission.”

The Commissioners are required to ’ begin work as soon as the Act becomes a law, and they therefore entered upon the functions of their offices on the 9th day of August, 1919.

[61]*61Tlie International Fair provided for in the Act is “to be inaugurated on November lltli, 1922, or at such later date as said commission may determine, and to run, continue or remain open for such number of months (not less than twelve) as said commission may determine or in its judgment deem proper.”

At the very shortest period provided for in the statute the International Fair would continue until November 11th, 1923, a period of four years and three months from the date when the commissioners entered upon the duties of their offices. The statute, however, does not require the Exposition to be inaugurated on November 11, 1922, but authorizes the commission to open it at a later date, and while it requires it to remain open not less than twelve months, it empowers the commissioners to keep it open longer if in their judgment they deem it proper, thus extending the term of their offices certainly beyond four years, and' for an indefinite period beyond that time.

The powers conferred by the Act upon the commissioners are of a very high governmental character. They are authorized to ask from the Congress of the United States on behalf of the State of Florida, an appropriation to help the State carry on this Exposition. They are empowered to receive from the Federal Government any appropriation that it may make to the State of Florida, and may expend it on behalf of the State in holding this Exposition.

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

Related

Attorney General Opinion No.
Kansas Attorney General Reports, 1993
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1978
Hakam v. City of Miami Beach
108 So. 2d 608 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1959)
Pollack v. Montoya
234 P.2d 336 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1951)
State Ex Rel. Watson v. Friend
11 So. 2d 182 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
State Ex Rel. Arthur Kudner, Inc. v. Lee
7 So. 2d 110 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
State Ex Rel. Swanson v. Strickland
166 So. 313 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Thompson
164 So. 192 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
City of Louisville v. Thomas
78 S.W.2d 767 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1935)
State Ex Rel., Pickett v. Truman
64 S.W.2d 105 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Green
144 So. 681 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
State Ex Rel. Davis v. Botts
134 So. 219 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Garrison v. McLaurin
131 So. 89 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1930)
Blitch v. Buchanan
131 So. 151 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
State Ex Rel. Douglas v. Board of Public Instruction
123 So. 540 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board
122 So. 239 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Dade County v. State
116 So. 72 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
State ex rel. Buford v. Watkins
102 So. 347 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
Westlake v. Merritt
95 So. 662 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 So. 84, 79 Fla. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-swearingen-v-jones-fla-1920.