Opinion
March 24, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Wm. A. Herin, J.
Loftin, Anderson, Scott, McCarthy Preston, Miami, for appellants.
Walton, Hubbard, Schroeder, Lantaff Atkins, William C. Lantaff and John H. Wahl, Jr., Miami, for appellee.
Appellant seeks to recover for engineering services rendered appellee City on the theory of quantum meruit. Charter requirements of the City, Sec. 20 et seq., Ch. 11516, Laws of Florida 1925 Ex.Sess., were not complied with in a contract between appellant and City in connection with a proposed extension of its waterworks system, pursuant to which contract appellant prepared certain specifications and other data and turned them over to the City and they were never utilized — apparently the project was abandoned.
The contract with appellants was executed on February 11, 1947 and one month later a suit was filed in which a temporary order was issued enjoining the City from proceeding further with its program; this injunction was made permanent on Final Hearing.
The Master found for appellant and the Chancellor sustained exceptions and a Final Decree was issued in favor of the City.
Appellant seeks to invoke the rule set out in Webb v. Hillsborough County, 128 Fla. 471, 175 So. 874, 875, and Harwell v. Hillsborough County, 111 Fla. 361, 149 So. 547, to the effect that municipal corporations are liable to an action of implied assumpsit with respect to money or property received by them and applied beneficially to their authorized objects (italics supplied) through contracts which are simply unauthorized, as distinguished from those which were prohibited by their charters or some other law bearing upon them, or were malum in se, or violative of public policy.
Apparently it was the conclusion of the Chancellor that it had not been made to appear that the City accepted this work, used it or that it has been applied to any authorized object or that the City has received any benefits thereunder (other than the preliminary survey for which appellant was fully paid) and there is ample predicate for this holding in the record.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., CHAPMAN and ROBERTS, JJ., and GERALD, Associate Justice, concur.