Newmar Corporation and others, owners of lands in North St. Lucie River Drainage District filed a suit in equity against the tax collector of St. Lucie County, the supervisors of North St. Lucie River Drainage District and others, in which it is alleged that the said supervisors have levied a drainage tax or assessment against described lands of the complainants for the years 1928 and 1929; that said supervisors:
There are other allegations designed to show illegality in the statute, Chapter 6458, Acts of 1913, under which the district was formed and to show illegality in the action taken in forming the district and in issuing bonds to be paid by taxation here sought to be enjoined.
The prayer is that the formation of the district be decreed to be invalid and a cloud upon the title of complainant's lands in the district; that the tax assessments be declared invalid and canceled, and the collection of the taxes enjoined.
A demurrer of the supervisors to the bill of complaint was overruled. The supervisors filed a joint and several answer controverting the allegations of the bill of complaint and adducing two statutes validating the administrative acts complained of. An examiner was appointed to take testimony on the issues raised by the bill and answer. An appeal was taken by the supervisors from the order overruling their demurrer to the bill of complaint and from the order appointing an examiner to take testimony.
The validating provisions of Chapter 7973, Acts 1919, and Chapter 8896, Acts 1921, referred to in the answer of the supervisors are as follows:
WHITFIELD, P. J. —
In this suit to invalidate the North St. Lucie River Drainage District and to enjoin the collection of drainage taxes in the district, it is contended that the formation of the district was not in accordance with the statute, Chapter 6458, Acts 1913; that the statute is invalid because it requires the circuit court to perform legislative functions in forming drainage districts under the statute, thereby conferring legislative powers upon the courts in violation of Article II of the State Constitution; and that the validating statutes adduced by the defendants are inoperative to make effective the illegalities in Chapter 6458 and in the action taken thereunder in forming the North St. Lucie River Drainage District and in making the tax assessments against the lands in the district.
The statute requires upon the filing of a stated petition for the formation of a drainage district, an official publication of a notice to "persons interested in the" lands proposed to be formed into the drainage district, to appear before the circuit court, "and show cause, if any there be, why said drainage district as set forth," "shall not be organized as a public corporation of the State of Florida;" that "any owner of lands in said proposed district, who may not have signed said petition, may appear * * * and advocate or resist the organization and incorporation of said drainage district;"
"If he shall desire to resist the establishment of the district, he shall file his objection in writing stating therein his reasons why the said drainage district should not be organized and incorporated or why his lands or any part thereof should not be included therein or he may deny the statements in said petition. Such objections, if any there be, shall be heard by the court either in term time or vacation in a summary manner, without unnecessary delay, on a day to be named by the court or judge thereof, upon application of the petitioners or any of those signing the said petition. Upon the hearing, which may be adjourned from time to time for good cause shown, of the said objection, if any have been filed, if the court shall be of the opinion that the establishment of the said drainage district and the improvements to be made thereunder will be for the advantage of the owners of the real property therein or that the same would be in the
interest of the public health, convenience or welfare, he shall overrule said objection; and, in case all such objections are overruled or in case no such objections have been filed, the court thereupon shall, by its order duly entered of record, declare and decree said drainage district a public corporation of the State."
The quoted and other pertinent provisions of the statute do not delegate to the courts any "legislative power" that the Constitution required to be exercised solely by the legislature. The authority conferred upon the courts by the statute is a function to find and declare the existence of facts upon which a completed law may be put into operation in a case brought within the limitations fixed by the statute; and such function is not among "the powers of the government of the State of Florida," which Article II of the Constitution requires shall be exercised exclusively by one of the three departments of the government. The function to find and declare that the facts exist upon which the statute by its own terms operates, may by the statute be conferred upon an appropriate administrative tribunal; or it may be conferred by statute upon a court under the provision of Section 11, Article V, Constitution, which gives to the circuit courts jurisdiction of stated judicial matters "and of such other matters as the legislature may provide." See Martinez v. Ward, 19 Fla. 175; State v. Duval County, 76 Fla. 180, 79 So. R. 692; State v. Atlantic Coast Line, 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. R. 969, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 639; Duval Cattle Co. v. Hemphill, U.S. Circuit Court Appeals. Corporations not for profit are passed upon by the circuit judge before the law gives them corporate existence. Section 6495 et seq., Comp. Gen. Laws. See also Sections 5076, et seq., and Section 5083, Comp. Gen. Laws. See also Town of Ormond v. Shaw, 50 Fla. 445, 39 So. R. 108. The court in fact acted in performing a statutory function in finding and declaring the existence of facts upon which the statute became operative by its own force, and whether the person who performed the fact finding function is a judicial officer or an executive or legislative officer is not controlling.
Executive or administrative officers or tribunals may by statute be authorized to exercise functions that are quasi judicial or quasi legislative in their nature, when the function is not a power that by the Constitution is assigned exclusively to one of the three departments of the government. The statutory duties of the railroad commission, the county commissioners and other administrative bodies are illustrations of the exercise of quasi legislative or quasi judicial functions. State v. A. C. L., 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. R. 969, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 639.
"The legislature, by (Chapter 6458, Laws of Florida) authorizing the establishment of drainage districts and assessments against property specially benefitted upon compliance with the terms and conditions which it prescribed, did not delegate its legislative power. Hagar v. Reclamation Drainage District,
111 U.S. 701. A compliance with these conditions precedent but gives effect to the legislative will.
"Whether in any given instance there has been such compliance is always a question of fact. To require the submission of a question of this nature to a court for its determination is not to confer upon it either legislative or executive power. This drainage act confers upon the courts the power, not to create a drainage district, but merely to decide and declare whether one has been created in accordance with its provisions. Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley,
164 U.S. 112, 178." Duval Cattle Co. v. Hemphill, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, decided 1930.
The provisions of Chapter 6458, Acts 1913, requiring a circuit court to hear objections to the incorporation of a drainage district or to the inclusion of particular lands therein, and to determine whether "the establishment of said drainage district and the improvements to be made thereunder will be for the advantage of the owners of the real property, therein or that the same would be in the interest of the public health, convenience or welfare," do not violate Article II of the Constitution.
The statute authorizes drainage districts to be formed "of any contiguous body of wet or overflowed lands, or lands subject to overflow, * * * for the purpose of having such lands reclaimed and protected from the effects of water for sanitary or agricultural purposes, or when the same may be conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare, or of public utility or benefit, by drainage or otherwise." Whether the statute may be applied to a particular locality is by the statute itself made to depend upon the existence of facts within the provisions and limitations of the statute, the existence of the facts to be found and declared by the tribunal designated by the statute, upon which finding of facts, the statute itself operates to form the district. See Martinez v. Ward, 19 Fla. 175.
The function of finding and declaring the facts contemplated by, the statute, to exist in a particular case is at least a quasi judicial function, the performance of which the legislature may confer upon the circuit courts, particularly in view of the provision of Section 11, Art. V. Constitution, that the circuit courts shall have jurisdiction "of such other matters as the legislature may provide." See Town of Ormond, 50 Fla. 445, 39 So. 108.
The courts take judicial notice of legislative enactments and this can be done in considering a demurrer to a bill of complaint which does not refer to the legislative enactments. Statutes purporting to validate administrative acts in a bill of complaint to be invalid, may be considered by the court in passing upon a demurrer to the bill of complaint alleging such acts to be invalid; and if the validating statutes render valid the administrative acts alleged to be invalid, the demurrer to the bill of complaint should be sustained if the bill is not otherwise good as against the demurrer.
The decision in Pinellas Park Drainage District v. Kessler, 69 Fla. 558, 68 So. R. 668, with reference to the validity of Chapter 6458, Acts 1913, was more comprehensive than was the decision in Moore v. Hillsborough Co., 86 Fla. 514, 98 So. R. 505, with reference to the validity of Chapter 9316, Acts 1923. See Smith Bros. v. Williams, Jan. Term 1930. See also Columbia Co. v. King, 13 Fla. 465; Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 2 Wall. 203. Gelepke v. Du Buque, 1 Wall. 175, 1 Law Ed. 520; Fidelity Bank v. Swope, 274 U.S. 123, 71 L.Ed. 959.
By Chapter 7973, Acts 1919, quoted in the statement, "all of the proceedings taken for the cessation, establishment and organization of North St. Lucie River Drainage District in St. Lucie County, Florida, * * * and any and all tax levies and assessments which have been made by the Board of Supervisors of said North St. Lucie River Drainage District for and on behalf of said District upon the taxable property located within said District, be and they are each and every one of them and each and every part thereof, hereby ratified, approved, validated and confirmed."
These statutory provisions render valid all the proceedings and all administrative and quasi judicial actions taken under Chapter 6458, Acts 1913, it not appearing that any of such proceedings or actions taken conflict with organic law, see Pinellas Park Drainage District v. Kessler, 69 Fla. 558, 68 So. R. 668, or that the validating acts are not within the legislative power. It is not necessary to consider questions of laches or estoppel or the propriety of the remedy invoked or the particular relief prayed for. See Duval Cattle Co. v. Hemphill, supra.
The order overruling the demurrer to the bill of complaint and the order appointing an examiner to take testimony on the issues made by the bill of complaint and the answer of the Supervisors, are reversed.
TERRELL, C. J., AND STRUM, J., concur.
BUFORD, J., concurs in the conclusion.
ELLIS, J., dissents.