Opinion
January 18, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lafayette County, Hal W. Adams, J.
A.K. Black, Lake City, for appellants.
G. Warren Sanchez, Live Oak, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final decree validating issue of certificates of indebtedness, issued for the purpose of building, equipping and furnishing a new county jail in Lafayette County. The proceedings to issue the certificates were had under the provisions of Section 135.01 et seq., F.S.A., and were in strict accordance with the provisions of these sections except that the notice, as required by Section 135.01, was published only twice, to-wit: October 26 and November 3, 1950, which advised the freeholders of a meeting to be held by the Board of County Commissioners on December 4, 1950. The Statute in question requires the Board of County Commissioners "shall give notice for thirty days in some newspaper published in said county".
At the 1951 Session of the Legislature, Chapter 27661 was enacted into law. The purpose of this Act was to ratify, confirm, validate and legalize all acts and proceedings taken and done by the Board of County Commissioners of Lafayette County in connection with the jail project and the issuance of the construction certificates to finance the same.
In the answer filed by the State Attorney he alleged that the certificates were invalid because the same were not approved at an election of the freeholders in the manner required by Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution, F.S.A. In the final decree the Circuit Court found that this Section of the Constitution was not violated. The Circuit Judge was correct. This question has been definitely settled by this Court. See Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39.
The next question raised by the State Attorney in his answer was that the notice with reference to the meeting to be held on December 4, 1950, was not published in accordance with Section 135.01, as amended, and that the defect was not cured by reason of enactment of Chapter 27661, Special Acts of 1951. There is no merit in this contention. If the notice was defective because it was only published twice, such defect was cured by the enactment of the above mentioned Special Act. The Legislature could have in the first place described the exact notice which was given. The effect of the validating act is to render immaterial a portion of the prescribed proceedings that could have been dispensed with by the Legislature in the first place. In the case of Dover Drainage District v. Pancoast, 102 Fla. 267, 135 So. 518, this Court held that the Legislature by a curative act may even validate bonds originally issued without authority, provided the Legislature could have authorized the issuance of the bonds in the first place. See State v. Haines City, 137 Fla. 616, 188 So. 831, and Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d 799.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and CHAPMAN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.