Opinion
August 17, 1951.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Charles A. Carroll, J.
Glenn C. Mincer, Miami, for appellant.
Hudson Cason, Miami, for appellee.
The appeal is from a decree validating two separate issues of bonds which Dade County, Florida, proposes to issue to finance public projects. The basic facts of the case are essentially the same as were dealt with by this court in State of Florida v. City of Miami, Fla. 1951, 53 So.2d 524, and the decision in that case is controlling.
Dade County passed three separate resolutions, each calling a special election to be held for the purpose of submitting to the freeholders of the County the questions whether bonds should be issued to finance the construction of a hospital, a clinic and an armory. The bond elections were held on general election day, November 7, 1950, simultaneously with the general election. A single paper ballot was used for the bond elections, upon which was printed all three bond propositions. This ballot was furnished only to freeholders who, as qualified electors, came to the voting booths to participate in the general election. On the day the election was held there were 138,645 qualified electors who were freeholders residing in the county and legally qualified to vote on the question of the issuance of the bonds. According to the election returns from the bond election the tabulation of votes on the several issues were as follows: Bond Proposition For Bonds Bonds
Against Jackson Memorial Hospital 66,797 6,272 Clinic 59,433 8,929 Armory 40,902 23,371 It is plain from the facts of the case that the county commissioners combined in one election three separate proposals required by law to be submitted to the freeholders separately. A majority of the freeholders residing in the county participated in the bond election on the question whether bonds should be issued to finance a hospital, and a majority of those participating voted in favor of the issuance of the bonds. However, a majority of the freeholders residing in the county did not participate in the bond election on the propositions whether bonds should be issued to finance a clinic and an armory and hence there was no freeholder approval of these proposals.No question is before us as to the validity of the bonds to be issued for hospital purposes. The decree appealed from does not deal with them but only with the validity of the bonds to be issued for financing a clinic and an armory. Inasmuch as it appears from the record that the clinic and the armory bonds were never approved "by a majority of the votes cast in an election in which a majority of the freeholders who are qualified electors residing" in the county participated, as required by section 6, Article IX, Florida Const., the decree validating such bonds should be reversed, on authority of State of Florida v. City of Miami, supra.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.