Lead Opinion
This suit was brought by a citizen taxpayer, who is the owner, to enjoin municipal taxation of described land. The levies for the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, are apparently for operating expenses and bond payments, and for the year 1936 the levy is apparently to pay municipal bonds that were issued and used for municipal public improvements under Chapters 11299 and 11301, *358 Acts of 1925, before the municipal authority of the City of Winter Haven over a particular area, including plaintiff’s land, was ousted by a judgment in quo warranto proceedings. The prayer is for cancellation of tax levies and for injunction against levies and collection of taxes upon plaintiff’s land for the stated • purposes.
Illegal taxation of lands may be enjoined. Pickett v. Russell,
The bill of complaint seeks relief upon the ground that plaintiff’s land was never legally within the city limits, and not upon the ground that plaintiff’s land has not received and' cannot receive any possible benefits from the municipality or from its public improvements, as in City of Sarasota v. Skillin,
Counsel for the city in effect argues that the city being a de jure municipality, has de facto jurisdiction and authority to levy and collect the taxes on plaintiff’s land to pay administrative expenses and also to pay municipal bonds issued by the city as authorized under its statutory charter, Chapter 11299, with power to impose the tax, whie Chap ter 11301, Acts of 1925, which added to the city boundaries the area formerly in the Town of Florence Villa and also added another area embracing plaintiff’s land, was prima facie and presumptively valid and in force in its entirety.
The plaintiff below, appellee here, contends in effect that by reason of the insufficiency of the title to Chapter 11301, Acts of 1925, to cover the portion of the statute which adds to the boundaries of the City of Winter Haven the area *359 theretofore incorporated, that portion of the-statute is invalid; that such partial invalidity appears on the face of the statute; that such portion of the statute was void from is enactment because it violated Section 16 of Article III, Constitution; that there can be no de facto jurisdiction of the city over such area; that taxation of plaintiff’s land in such area violates Sections 3 and 5 of Article IX of the State Constitution. These contentions are not well founded, as will be shown herein. Appellee does not contest the validity of the municipal bonds of the City of Winter Haven.
Statutes and judicial judgments and decrees should be so interpreted and applied as to effectuate the intended purpose that is consistent with applicable provisions of the paramount organic law; and personal and property rights that are intended by the Constitution to be secured to those lawfully claiming them, should be protected and enforced by due course of law, when no applicable express or implied provision of the State or Federal Constitution is thereby violated. For example, when the subject of property rights is lawfully produced or created, and rights that are intended by the Constitution to be secured to those lawfully claiming them, are bona fide duly acquired in the property so produced or created, such rights should by due course of law be protected and enforced, even though there be procedural or other defects, but no violation of controlling organic law, in the creation or acquisition of such rights. See State v. City of Cedar Keys,
But if a command or prohibition of the Constitution is violated in the creation or production of the subjects of property or in the acquisition of interest therein, such interests are not rights that are intended by the Constitution to be secured, and they will not as such be protected or en
*360
forced in the courts. See State,
ex rel.
Nuveen, v. Greer,
Chapter 11299, Acts of 1925, established the City of Winter Haven with described boundaries and extensive municipal powers and authority to issue municipal interest bearing negotiable bonds to be sold and the proceeds thereof used for authorized municipal improvement purposes, the interest and principal of the bonds to be paid by necessary annual tax levied upon all the property within the city.
Chapter 11301, Acts of 1925, abolished the adjacent Town of Florence Villa and added its area to that of the City of Winter Haven, together with an additional area including plaintiff’s land, not theretofore in any municipality.
After June 2,. 1925, the effective date of Chapter 11301, the City of Winter Haven, pursuant to its statutory charter authority, issued municipal interest bearing negotiable bonds for authorized municipal public, improvement purposes. The bonds in effect state that all provisions of law were complied with, and pledged the faith and credit of the city for the payment of the bonds. The statute authorized the taxation of all the lands within the city limits to pay the bonds. The bonds were duly validated by decrees of the Circuit Court, a court of general jurisdiction, acting under express statutory authority consistent with the Constitution. No appeals were taken from the validating decrees. The statute made all citizens and taxpayers of the city parties to the validating proceedings. None of them contested the validation or the issue of the bonds, and the decrees of validation became res adjudicata. The proceeds of the bonds were used for authorized municipal public improvements, some of the improvements being in the added area which embraces plaintiff’s land. Taxes were annually levied upon all the taxable lands in the City of Winter Haven, as de *361 scribed by Chapter 11301, including the area embracing plaintiff’s land, to pay the interest and principal of the bonds and operating expenses.
On March 7, 1934, after the bonds were validated and sold and the municipal public improvements were made, the City of Winter Haven was by quo warranto judgment ousted from all jurisdiction and authority over the stated added area embracing plaintiff’s land. State,
ex rel.,
v. City of Winter Haven,
Thereafter the City of Winter Haven ceased to levy taxes on the area from which the jurisdiction of the city had been ousted by the
quo warranto
judgment. Later in mandamus proceedings brought by bondholders, the United States District Court required the city to continue -to appropriately tax the lands covered by the quo warranto judgment for bond payment purposes until the interest and principal of the bonds are paid. Such judgment of the LTnited States District Court was affirmed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. City of Winter Haven v. Gillespie, 84 Fed. (2d) 285. Certiorari was denied. Hartridge-Cannon Co.,
et al.,
v. Gillespie,
et al.,
A taxpayer brought this suit in the State Circuit Court to enjoin the city from taxation of his land for the above stated municipal purposes. From adverse interlocutory decrees the city took the appeal in this case.
In City of Winter Haven v. Gillespie, 84 Fed. (2d) 285, above cited, the action was mandamus brought by bondholders against the city to enforce taxation. In this case the suit is by a taxpayer against the city to enjoin taxation. The same basic principles of law are applicable in each case.
The quo warranto judgment of March 7, 1934, operating, not upon land, but upon city authorities, ousted the City of Winter Haven from exercising municipal jurisdic *362 tion over the stated added area upon the ground, not that the Legislature had no power to add lands to the city limits, but that such area was not covered by the subject expressed in the title to Chapter 11301, as is required by Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution. As the Legislature had the power by statute to incorporate added lands in the city and as the quo warranto judgment could not change the statutory boundaries of the city, and as the city had exercised the prima facie valid jurisdiction and authority conferred by the statute, the judgment ousting the city from jurisdiction over a part of the area, did not affect the de facto jurisdiction of the city over such added area.
When considered with the title of the Act quoted in the statement, the description of the boundaries of the City of Haven as contained in Chapter 11301, also quoted in the statement filed herewith, does not show
by the face of the statute
that such described boundaries contain land not covered by the title of the Act. Consequently the alleged failure of the'title of the Act to express a subject broad enough to include all the lands embraced in the description of boundaries of the City of Winter Haven contained in Chapter 11301, had to be, and was, shown by evidence
aliunde
the statute in the quo warranto proceedings before the judgment of ouster could have been legally rendered. State,
ex rel.
v. City of Winter Haven,
Where a statute establishing, or relating to, the jurisdiction and powers of a municipality, or a part of such statúte, violates a command or a prohibition of the Constitution which relates, not merely to the
form
of the exer
*363
cise of the legislative power in enacting statutes, as does Section 16, Article III, but which relates to the
nature or character of the subject matter of the enactment,
as do Secion 17, Article XII, Section 30, Article III, and Section 7, Article IX; such statute or a severable portion thereof so violating the Constitution, may be adjudicated to be invalid and inoperative
ab initio,
and, as in such cases, the' invalidity of the Act or the portion thereof goes to the
power
of the Legislature to enact the law, and not merely to the form of the enactment, no rights or correlative obligations may arise under such invalid statute or invalid portion of the statute. Such invalid statute or part of, a statute could not be validated by statute or by ■ judicial decree. See Brown v. City of Lakeland,
But where the Legislature
has power
to extend the au- ■ thority of a city over the added areas of lands by including them in an existing municipality, and attempts to do so' by a
prima facie
and presumptively valid statute, and for some, years the city exercises municipal authority over such lands, but the subject expressed in the title of the Act is later adjudged to be not sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the particular lands, such defect going to 'the
form
of the statute and not to the
power
of the Legislature to include lands in the municipality,
and because thereof
the'city is ousted from jurisdiction and authority over such particular area of lands by quo warranto judgment, the municipal jurisdiction and authority exercised over such lands by virtue of the
prima facie
and presumptively valid statute, • may be
de facto
jurisdiction and authority, binding' on citizens and taxpayers for the purposes of issuing bonds for
*364
authorized municipal purposes, and levying duly authorized taxes; since, under Section 8, Article VI'II of the Constitution, the Legislature has power to incorporate lands, and the lands were intended to be included, though they were not legally included in the city limits, because of the defective title of the Act. In such case, the portion of the statute covering the added area of lands would be
prima facie
and presumptively valid until adjudged to be invalid to confer
de jure
jurisdiction,
because
of the
defective
or
illegal
exercise of the power which the Legislature had, to include lands in the city limits and authority, though the city would have
de facto
jurisdiction over the area because of the exercise of its
prima facie
jurisdiction and authority. But if the Legislature had no power to include lands within . the limits and authority of the city, there could be no
de jure
or
de facto
municipal authority of the city over the lands. See State,
ex rel.,
v. Walthall,
Chapter; 11299 authorizes the issue of municipal bonds not to exceed ten per cent, of the value of the taxable property in the city, and requires the levy of taxes upon lands that
are necessary to pay the bonds.
Such levy is made “in pursuance of law” under Section 3, Article IX, of the Constitution; and the statute is sufficiently definite and specific in its limitations as to the issue of bonds and taxation so as not to be an unlawful delegation of legislative power under Section 5, Article IX, of the Constitution. See Roundtree v. State,
*365 In view of the above statements, it is clear that under Chapters 11299 and 11301, Acts of 1925, the City of Winter Haven is a de jure municipality; that the city had authority to issue the bonds for the authorized municipal purposes; and, in order to pay the bonds, had and has authority to levy and collect an appropriate tax upon all the land that was prima facie and presumably legally with the city limits under Chapter 11301, the authority after the ouster judgment being de jure as to all lands legally in the city limits, and de facto, but effectual as to appropriate taxation of the land in the area from which the jurisdiction of the city has been ousted by the quo warranto judgment, which area includes plaintiff’s land, such taxation since 1934 being to pay amounts due on the bonds of' the city. The quo warranto judgment of ouster was rendered years after the city assumed and exercised jurisdiction over all the territory described in Chapter 11301, and after the bonds had been validated and sold and the proceeds thereof used in the authorized municipal improvements made in the city, some of such improvements being in the area in which plaintiff’s land is located.
This conclusion is not intended to affect, and does not affect', the quo warranto judgment of ouster, relating 'as it does to the de jure jurisdiction of the City of Winter Haven over the stated added area; but the conclusion is that, under the facts shown, the original prima facie and presumptively de jure jurisdiction and ultimate de facto jurisdiction of the City of Winter Haven over the land affected by the judgment of ouster and the exercise of such jurisdiction and authority before the ouster judgment, gives the city legal authority to levy and collect appropriate and just taxes upon plaintiff’s land since the judgment of ouster, to pay its proper share of the legal bond obligations of the city. The tax levies made before the ouster judgment ap *366 parently were for operating expenses as well as for paying bonds issued by the city. A further discussion with citations of authority might not be inappropriate.
The right to establish a municipality does not exist in individuals but is conferred by the State through statutes that accord with organic law. Robinson v. Jones,
The
inhabitants
of a community in establishing a town under the statute have
no authority
to incorporate in the same municipality two distinct detached tracts of land; and an attempt to do so is void. Town of Enterprise v. State,
Under Section 8, Article VIII, Constitution, quoted in the statement, except as modified by Section 6, Article IX, as amended in 1930, as to issuing governmental bonds,” the Legislature shall have power t'o establish and to abolish municipalities, to provide for their government, to prescribe their jurisdiction and powers.” Hayes v. Walker, 54 Fla.
*367
163,
As a basis for the establishment of a municipality by or under statutory authority, there- must be in existence a community of people and a territory they occupy of sufficient but not patently excessive and unsuited area for the inhabitants to have such human contacts as to create a community of public interest and duty requiring, in consideration of the general welfare, an organized governmental agency for the management of their local affairs of a
quasi
public nature. State v. Town of Lake Placid,
The power to establish a municipality may not lawfully be so exercised as to be an abuse of power or authority to incorporate an area where there is no resident population or where the population is so small and disproportionate to an enormously excessive area included in the boundaries, when the patently and grossly' excessive area is not suitable for municipal purposes, and cannot be benefited by the municipality or its public facilities or improvements, and cannot be needed for a reasonably expected growth of the municipality or the needs of the municipality. State v. Sarasota,
The Constitution commands that when a municipality is abolished, provision shall be made for the protection of its creditors. State v. Goodgame,
A statute incorporating lands into á municipality is not ipso facto or even prima facie unconstitutional on the ground that some of the lands may be adjudged to be unsuited for municipal purposes, or that some of the lands cannot be benefited by such incorporation; for such matters are within the legislative judgment, unless by due course of law a violation of a provision of the Constitution is adjudged; and such adjudication ordinarily has to be made upon evidence aliunde the statute. A statute not patently unconstitutional on its face is prima facie and presumptively, valid, and rights acquired bona fide under such a statute are property rights protected by the State and Federal Constitutions.
As Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution, which rendered invalid the portion of Chapter 11301 because of the defective title of the Act, operated upon the form, or manner of the enactment and did not negátive the pozver of the Legislature to include lands in the city limits, the statute being invalid on its face, was prima facie and presumptively valid in its entirety, and so remained until the *369 quo warranto judgment ousted the city from its prima facie de jure jurisdiction conferred by Chapter 11301 over the above stated added area. But such ouster did not deprive the city of its de facto jurisdiction and authority, which (consistently with the Constitution and statutes of the State and without affecting the ouster judgment) the law raises to protect and enforce organic rights lawfully acquired pursuant to the exercise by the city of the prima facie and presumptively valid jurisdiction and authority conferred upon the city by Chapter 11301.
Some of the provisions of the State Constitution relate to and control the form and manner of enacting statutes; e.g., Sections 16, 17, Article III; some provisions relate to and control the
power
of the Legislature to enact
stated
subjects of legislation; e.g., Sections 5 and 6, Article IX; Section 30, Article III; and other provisions contain commands or prohibitions addressed to the Legislature or to other departments of the government, or to all; e.g., Section 7, Article IX; Section 23, Article III. The enacting clause prescribed by Section 15, Article III, is a prime essential to the validity of a law.
In re
Advisory Opinion,
Statutes that are not patently and indubitably void or unconstitutional on their face are
prima facie
and presumptively valid and constitutional; and they so remain, subject to be duly adjudicated to be in whole or in part in conflict with express or implied provisions of the paramount law or to be otherwise inoperative in whole or in part. This rule is particularly applicable where the illegality alleged is the legal insufficiency of the title to express the subject embraced in the body of the Act, since.the Legislature has wide latitude in selecting and expressing subjects of legislation, and the courts do not adjudge a title to a legislative enactment to be in violation of Section 16,
*370
Article III, unless the title is misleading and such violation appears beyond any doubt, so as to make it the duty of the courts to sustain the Constitution when a statute indubiably conflicts therewith. See Hiers v. Mitchell,
Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution is mandatory in its provisions; and a legislative enactment which violates this section is invalid
ab initio.
The section does not relate to a specific subject of legislation, as does Section 17, Article XI'I, nor does it relate to
subjects
that shall not be included in the statute, as does Section 6, Article IX, and Section 30, Article III; but it relates to the
form
and manner of expressing the subjects of the enactments in the titles of the Acts. If the organic invalidity is patent upon the face of the enactment, or if it violates a command or prohibition of the Constitution
affecting the nature
of the subject matter and not merely the
form
or manner of the enactment, it is,
ipso facto,
void, and no fights may be acquired under it. Nuveen v. City of Quincy,
In this case the invalidity
of a portion
of Chapter 11301, Acts of 1925, is because of the insufficiency of the title of the Act to include a portion of the lands attempted to be embraced in Chapter 11301, which invalidity is as to the form and manner of the enactment, and did not go to the power¶of the Legislature to incorporate land; and such invalidity did not appear on the face of the statute, and had to be shown by evidence; and because of the action taken under the
prima facie
and presumptively valid statute, the doctrine of
de facto
jurisdiction of the municipality over the lands not legally but in fact in the municipality by statutory description, is properly applied under the State and Federal decisions establishing the doctrine of
de facto
ju- • risdiction of municipalities established
by statutes.
See cases last above cited. In Wade v. Atlantic Lumber Co.,
Section 16, Article III, does not relate to particular subjects of legislation as do Section 7, Article IX, and Section 17, Article XII; but like Sections 15 and 17, Article III, Section 16 is applicable to every legislative enactment. Ordi-. narily and generally when a statute violates Section 16, Article III, it appears by a consideration of the face of the statute with the organic section, as in Car v. Thomas,
In this case a part of Chapter 11301 violates the first clause of Section 16, Article III, in that the description of *372 the boundaries of the City of Winter Haven as contained in Chapter 11301, does not show on its face that it embraces more area than that which was theretofore in the city plus the added area that had been included in the abolished Town of Florence Villa, which two latter areas alone were covered by the title. That an area not theretofore incorporated was added to the city limits by the contents of Chapter 11301 but not covered by the title of the Act, was shown by evidence aliunde Chapter 11301, in the quo warranto proceedings and a judgment was rendered ousting the city from jurisdiction and authority over the added area. The statutory descriptions of the area theretofore included in. the City of Winter Haven and the boundaries of the Town of Florence Villa had to be examined before it appeared that Chapter 11301 contained descriptions of land not covered by the title of the Act, viz.: description of areas that had not been in the city or in Florence Villa.
When a question is duly presented as to'whether a portion of a statute is embraced in the subject expressed in the title of the statute, or as to whether it is matter properly connected with the subject expressed in the title of the statute, the question is to be determined as a matter of law;, but
prima facie
and presumptively such portion is sufficiently covered by the title of the Act, at least unless it is patently obvious that it is not, which affords notice to. everyone; and if such portion of the statute does not appear by the face of the statute, considered with the Constitution, to be not covered by the title of the Act within the intent and meaning of Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution, it must be shown by evidence
aliunde
in appropriate judicial proceedings, as was done in State v. City of Winter Haven,
In such cases whether the controverted portion of a statute is, or is not, sufficiently covered by the title of the statute, as required by the State Constitution, is a matter for State, and not for Federal, jurisdiction.. See Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Risty,
In the North Miami case, 58 Sup. Ct. Rep. 385, ...... L. Ed......., the
general statutes
gave the inhabitants of the community authority to incorporate land,
but not non-contiguOus land.
In attempting to incorporate non-contiguous lands, the inhabitants did not merely defectively exercise their authority, but they assumed to exercise an authority not given them, viz.: to incorporate
non-contiguous
lands. Town of Enterprise v. State,
In this case the Constitution gave the Legislature authority to incorporate lands whether contiguous or not; but the Legislature must exercise its authority by statute enacted as required by Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution. Chapter 11301 incorporated lands as authorized by Section 8, Article VIII, Constitution, but some of the lands so incorporated were not embraced in the title of the Act. This was a defective exercise of the power conferred by Section 8, Article VIII, of the Constitution; but the statute did not assume to include lands it had no authority to incorporate.
Thus in the North Miami case,
supra,
there was no authority to incorporate
non-contiguous
lands; while in this case the
statute,
Chapter 11301, was a defective exercise by the Legislature of its power to incorporate all the lands,
*374
■by not making the title sufficiently comprehensive to include a part of the lands described in the body of the Act. There was no
statutory
validation or incorporation in the North Miami case, as in Schultz v. State,
Even if the portion of the lands . included in Chapter 11301 were of such a nature-and so situated that the city could have been ousted of jurisdiction of them on that ground, that did not appear by the statute, and would have to be shown
aliunde.
If the area had been excluded by statute after the land had become subject to taxation to pay bonds, the statute so excluding the land would be void as violating the obligation of the bond contracts, even if the jurisdiction of the municipality over the land be merely
de facto;
and there can be
de facto
municipal jurisdiction over lands that are defectively incorporated
by a statute not void on its face,
though there can be no
de facto
jurisdiction over
non-contiguous
lands attempted to be incorporated by
inhabitants
under the general statutes which do not give
inhabitants
authority to incorporate
non-contiguous
land, and no statute has incorporated or authorized the incorporation of non-contiguous lands by the inhabitants, or otherwise, as may be in accord with organic law. State v. Rodes,
The doctrines of
de jure
and of
de facto
municipal jurisdiction and powers, and of
de jure
and
de facto
officers and of
de jure
and
de facto
corporations existed in this State when the present Constitution of Florida was adopted.
*375
Such doctrines are not inconsistent with the Constitution and statutes of the State, and they have been recognized and applied in proper cases. If there is a
prima facie
and presumptively valid statutory
de jure
municipality or if there is
prima facie
and presumptive municipal jurisdiction or authority over an added area to the boundaries of a municipality, there may be
de facto-
municipal existence or jurisdiction. See West v. Town of Lake Placid,
Likewise if there is no office and no authority to create an office, there can be no
de facto
officer. But if the Legislature has authority to create an office and by statute defectively exercises the authority, or if there is no officer holding
de jure,
there may be a
de facto
officer under color of authority. Norton v. Shelby,
The de facto jurisdiction and authority of a municipality are recognized by the law as a means of protecting and enforcing rights bona fide acquired under a prima facie and presumptively valid statute, or under authority conferred by statute where the authority conferred, or attempted to be conferred, could have been conferred and is exercised in *376 good faith and within the authority that could legally have been, and was attempted to be, conferred.
In this case:
(1) There was a valid general law, viz.: Section 8, Article VIII, Constitution, under which Chapter 11301 could have added the stated área to the city limits;
(2) There was a legislative attempt in Chapter 11301 to add the area to the city limits;
(3) There has been acfual uses of the jurisdiction attempted to be conferred by Chapter 11301, a.nd rights have been acquired thereunder.
See Tulare Irrigation Dist. v. Shepard,
In Duke v. Taylor,
The provision of Section 5, Article IX, of the Constitution, that “the cities and incorporated towns shall make their own assessments for municipal purposes upon the property within their limits," does not forbid municipal taxation of land that was by statute included in the limits of a municipality, though the jurisdiction and authority of the municipality be ousted from the land, where rights had been- acquired predicated upon
de facto
power to tax the land before the municipal jurisdiction and authority over the land was ousted. If lands are excluded from the municipality by statute after organic rights had been acquired, it would violate the obligation of contracts, contrary to the State and Federal Constitutions. State v. Town of Holly Hill,
Though the taxpayer plaintiff does not challenge .the validity of the bonds for the payment of which his land is taxed, the authority to issue the bonds and to levy tax for authorized municipal purposes should and does appear.
The statute limits the amount of bonds to ten per cent, of the value of the property in the city and required the annual levy of a tax necessary to pay the bonds for duly authorized municipal purposes. This complies with .Sections 3 and 5 of Article IX of the Constitution; and there is no unlimited or unlawful delegation of the sovereign power of taxation to the municipality. There is no suggestion that Section 6, Article IX, Constitution, as amended in 1930, was not complied with after its adoption.
Where, pursuant to valid statutory authority, negotiable bonds to be paid by taxation are duly issued and sold
bona fide
by a
de jure
municipality to obtain funds for authorized municipal public improvement purposes, such negotiable bonds are binding contract obligations of the municipality to be paid by taxation as provided by law upon all the taxable property within the municipality at the time the bonds are issued and sold, unless otherwise provided in the law or proceedings authorizing the bonds to be issued. Humphreys v. State,
This rule of the contract obligations of such duly issued municipal bonds is applicable to taxable lands that were in the limits of a
de jure
municipality when the bonds were issued, but which were subsequently excluded by statute.
*378
Such lands, though excluded from the municipality, remain subject to the right of the municipality exerting
de facto
jurisdiction and of the right of
bona fide
holders of the negotiable bonds, to have the lands legally and appropriately taxed as authorized by law, in common. with the lands remaining in the municipality, to pay the bonds under the law in force and applicable when the bonds were issued. State v. Town of Holly Hill,
A like rule applies when it is attempted by statute or constitutional amendment .to exempt lands from taxation resulting in a violation of the organic commands that nc law shall be passed violating the obligation of contracts.' Sec. 17, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution; Sec. 1, Art. 10, Federal Constitution; Boatright v. City of Jacksonville,
The City of Winter Plaven is a legally existing municipality. The city exercised the. municipal authority conferred by Chapter 11299 over all the territory described in Chapter 11301, as being within the City boundaries. Duly authorized municipal bonds, to be paid by taxation of all taxable property in the city, were issued, validated, sold and used for authorized municipal public improvements, some *379 of which improvements were made in the area which embraces plaintiff’s land. Afterwards, by quo warranto judgment, the city was ousted of authority over an area including plaintiff’s land. Upon the principles stated and the authorities cited herein, the holding in this case is that the City of Winter Haven had and continues to have de facto jurisdiction and authority to appropriately tax plaintiff’s land along with other lands described in Chapter 11301 to pay operating expenses of the city before the rendition of the judgment of ouster and also to pay the bonds, and that the decrees appealed from should be severally reversed, and the cause remanded for further appropriate proceedings by due course of law..
Reversed and remanded.
Addendum
On Petition for Rehearing
In a petition for rehearing it is suggested, among other matters, that ,in the quo -warranto case, State,
ex rel., v.
City of Winter Plaven,
As shown by the body of Chapter 11301, the Legislature did manifest an intent to include in the boundaries of the City of Winter Haven the area in which plaintiff’s land *380 is located; and that legislative intent would be the law, if the Legislature had not violated Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution, by making the title of the Act too restrictive to express the entire subject of. the Act. The restrictive title rendered invalid the portion of the body of the Act which' is not covered by the subject expressed in the title. Such partial invalidity does not go to the power of the Legislature to include the land in the city, but to the contents of the title as used in expressing the subject of the Act by which the power of the Legislature is exercised.
Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution, does riot forbid or limit particular subjects of legislation, as do other organic sections, but commands that “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,” etc.
In enacting laws every legislative bill has a title which is designed to indicate the subject that is embraced in the proposed law; and the quoted organic command requires the title to briefly express the subject of the pending enactment so that the nature of the subject of the Act may be. truly indicated by reading the title. See State,
ex rel.,
v. Green,
Chapter 11301, Acts of 1925, in the body of the Act, amends Chapter 11299, Acts of 1925, by adding to the area of the City of Winter Plaven under the latter Act, the area of the abolished Town of Florence Villa and other lands not theretofore incorporated. The Act was in its entirety prima facie and presumptively a valid enactment. This status of the statute remained until in quo warranto proceedings a portion of the Act adding lands to the city boundaries was shown aliunde and adjudged to have been illegally included in the statute under its restrictive title.
*381 The body of Chapter 11301, Acts of 1925, amending Chapter 11299, so as to add areas to the city boundaries, •contained descriptions of lands designed to be added to the boundaries to the City of Winter Haven under a title which casually considered apparently covered the lands described in Chapter 11301 amending Chapter 1299, as being the area of the city. Evidence aliunde Chapter 11301 was required to show the title of the Act was too restricted to cover all the lands described in the Act as being the boundaries of the city. This was not merely “color of law” as to the boundaries of the city under the Act, but the Act was prima facie and presumptively a valid enactment in its entirety, and the city exercised de- facto jurisdiction over the res pursuant to Chapter 11301.
In the quo warranto case (State,
ex rel.,
v. City of Winter Flaven,
The quo warranto judgment ousted the
de jure
city from further exercising the
asserted de jure
jurisdiction over the area including plaintiff’s land,
under Chapter 11301;
but it did not relieve the city of its legal obligations incurred under the statutes; nor destroy legal rights acquired under the law, while the city was exercising
de facto
jurisdiction
*382
over the land under a
prima facie and presumptively valid
inclusion of the stated area in the described boundaries of the city contained in Chapter 11301. See State,
ex rel.,
v. City of Cedar Keys,
Validating decrees adjudicate the validity of proposed issues of municipal bonds; but whether lands over which a de jure city exercises de facto jurisdiction when negotiable municipal bonds are issued, are subject to taxation to pay the bonds, is to be determined by appropriate judicial procedure. If the lands were and are of such a nature and so located as to make their taxation for municipal purposes violate property rights secured by organic law, or if under the dominant law the lands are not subject to municipal taxation, that may be duly adjudicated in appropriate proceedings in which questions of the powers of the municipality as well as of waiver of estoppel of the land owners may be presented for determination.
In this case it is held that illegal taxes may be enjoined. Plaintiff seeks to have enjoined the collection of municipal taxes alleged to be illegally assessed against its property, and relies upon a ground which this court holds to be unavailing under the law. This is not a denial of due process of equal protection. If plaintiff has a right to relief that is not waived or barred, it may be litigated.
Under Chapter 11299, Acts of 1925, the city in this case is a de jure, nor merely a de facto, municipality. In the quo warranto proceedings the asserted de jure jurisdiction of the city over certain lands under Chapter 11301, was challenged and the city authorities were ousted from jurisdiction over the particular lands. This did not determine rights and obligations flowing from the exercise by the de jure city of de facto jurisdiction over the lands which *383 were by a presumably valid .enactment included in the city limits, even though such jurisdiction of the city over the lands, was, because of a defect in the title of Chapter 11301, ousted by a judgment in quo warranto, such judgment of ouster having been rendered after the city had issued negotiable bonds for authorized municipal purposes and pledged the taxing power of the city over all the lands in its limits to pay the bonds.
The de facto jurisdiction of the city over the res is not “predicated solely upon validation of the bonds,” as shown by the opinion of the court.
The judgment of ouster was affirmed not because the stated area was not a proper subject of legislation in the statute, but because the title of the Act did not indicate that the particular area was in fact included in the boundaries described in the Act.
Plaintiff is not by.the decision in this case, denied equal protection or. due process of law or deprived of the substantial fruits of the litigation in the quo warranto proceedings in which plaintiff was a corelator, since the quo warranto judgment did not adjudicate the rights and obligations flowing from the exercise of de facto jurisdiction by a de jure municipality. Some of such matters are here being litigated.
The quo warranto judgment was rendered after the bonds of the city were vaildated by judicial decrees and the legal inclusion of the res in the city limits could not be litigated or determined in the validating proceedings which related to the validity of the bonds, and not to whether lands were illegally included in the Act amending the city charter. It does not appear that the record in the validating proceedings showed any invalidity in the inclusion of lands in the city limits or that the bonds were not legally issued.
*384 Between the effective date of Chapter T1301 and the date of the quo warranto judgment ousting the city authorities from jurisdiction over the area adjudged to have been illegally included in the city limits the City of Winter Haven, being a de- jure municipality under Chapter 11299, had unquestioned de jure jurisdiction over all the area described in Chapter 11301, except the separate area which includes plaintiff’s land. And until the judgment of ouster, the city also had and exercised actual and prima facie de jure jurisdiction over the latter area predicated upon a presumptively valid statutory inclusion of such area in the boundaries of the city as described in Chapter 11301.
The Legislature had the power, under Section 8, Article VIII;. of the Constitution, to include in the city limits all of the lands described in Chapter 11301. ,But the defective exercise of such power by the Legislatui'e in enacting the statute without complying* with the Constitution as to the manner and form of expressing the subject of the law in the title of the enactment, caused a portion of the described area to be illegally included in the city. Yet the city, being a de jure municipality, was presumptively justified in exercising jurisdiction over such area in the manner provided by law. Such exercise of jurisdiction by the de jure city was de facto and presumptively de jtire; and the rights and obligations flowing from the exercise of such de facto jurisdiction were not involved in the quo warranto proceedings, and the judgment therein did not affect any rights or obligations arising from such exercise of de facto jurisdiction. After the quo warranto judgment of partial ouster, the rights lawfully acquired under the pre-existing de facto and prima- facie de jure jurisdiction of the city over the lands in the illegally added area, may be enforced under the doctrine of de facto jurisdiction of municipalities and their correlative rights and obligations. No contract rights *385 are thereby violated, and the due process of law clans'» ;s not violated. The citizens and taxpayers had notice of the exercise by the city of the de facto jurisdiction over the area'; and the citizens and taxpayers are bound by the judicial decrees validating the bonds as provided by statute. The commands of the Constitution that all men shall have rights of “acquiring, possessing and protecting property,” and that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” “nor shall private property be taken without just compensation,” should be made effective in proper cases.
A de jure municipality cannot issue negotiable bonds for authorized municipal purposes, by the exercise of de facto jurisdiction, and refuse to compensate therefor without violating organic law, .where the bonds are authorized by statute and are not issued in violation of a command or prohibition of the Constitution affecting the authority to issue the bonds or the terms or purposes thereof.
All parties are bound by the quo warranto judgment; ‘but such judgment did- not adjudicate the rights and obligations litigated in this case, which result from the exercise by a de jure municipality of de facto jurisdiction over lands that were under a presumptively valid statute incorporated in the municipal limits at the time when municipal bonds were issued for authorized municipal purposes, for the payment of which bonds the taxing power of the city over all the lands in the city was pledged. The particular lands were included in the city limits by statutory enactment when the municipal bonds were issued, validated and used for duly authorized municipal purposes. All of the citizens or taxpayers of the city were by the statute made parties to the bond validating proceedings, and the decrees therein are by the terms of the statute binding on all.'
*386
If under Section 8, Article VIII, of • the Constitution, a statute embraces in the boundaries of a municipality land that cannot be taxed for municipal purposes without violating some provision or principle of organic law, that matter may be determined in appropriate judicial proceedings, so that “by due course of law” “right and justice shall be administered” by the “courts in this State.” Sec. 4, Declaration of Rights. See State,
ex rel.,
v. City of Avon Park,
It does not clearly appear that the city is enforcing taxes for operating expenses on lands from which the jurisdiction of the city has been ousted by the quo warranto judgment.
Rehearing denied.