# State of Florida Ex Rel. v. Green

> Supreme Court of Florida · February 8, 1928 · 95 Fla. 117

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3394200

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Florida, Ex Rel. Fred H. Davis, Attorney General of the State of Florida, Relator, v. E. P. Green, J. H. Bayliss and I. E. Schilling, as Members of and Constituting the Conner’s Highway Commission, Respondents; The State of Florida, Ex Rel. Fred H. Davis, Attorney General of the State of Florida, Relator, v. F. E. Lawrence and J. L. Cresap, as Members of the Board of Engineers of the Conner’s Highway Commission, Respondents; Ernest Amos, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Conner’s Florida Highway, Inc., a Corporation, Appellants, v. Y. L. Watson, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** February 8, 1928
- **Citations:** 95 Fla. 117; 116 So. 66
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Strum, Buford, Brown
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3394200

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[t]he power to appropriate state funds for a lawful state purpose is legislative” and invalidating statute that purported to delegate this power by effectively giving a blank check to an executive branch entity and allowing it to fill in the amount

## Opinion text

Brown, J.
(concurring specially) :
... I concur with the holding in the majority opinion that this Act conflicts with the Constitution in a vital matter. S'eC. 4 of Art'. IX says:
“No money should be drawn from the Treasury except in pursuance of appropriations made by law. ’ ’
This is certainly
not
an appropriation made by
law,
which is attempted to be provided for by this Act. The legislature writes a bill for an appropriation, leaving the amount blank, and then hands over the pen to a non-official board of appraisers, one of whom represents an adverse interest, and authorizes such board, or any two of the three members of it, to fill in the amount of the appropriation. That is the substance of it. They hand the board of engineers the State’s blank check with power to fill in the amount. This is appropriation by proxy, not by the lawmaking body.
The legislature cannot thus be allowed to shirk the duty which the Constitution places upon it, to determine for itself, the amount of the appropriation. There is in my opinion no precedent in this State which would warrant us in holding valid such a radical departure from the plain intent of a Constitutional requirement. This renders the entire Act invalid. The facts of this case distinguish it from those cases involving appropriations to carry on the work- — to pay necessary expenses for labor — and supplies —of government departments or institutions — administrative expenses, the exact amount and price of the numerous items of which cannot possibly be known in advance. Usually such funds are paid out on requisition or certification of some responsible State official, and the appropriat
*131
ing Act names a maximum sum. This case is not one of that class.
In other respects it seems to me that the Act is constitutional.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3394200. Public record. Not legal advice.