
    The State of Florida, Ex rel The Board of Public Instruction of Gadsden County, vs. The Board of County Commissioners.
    1. The "Itemized estimate” of moneys required to bo raised by county tax for school purposes, furnished by the Bdard of Public Instruction to the Board of County Commissioners, should contain not merely a statement of the whole amount of money necessary to be expended for the support of schools for the school year, but should also give the estimated income from the State school tax, State school fund and other probable sources, so that the County Commissioners may be Informed of the amount required to be raised by county taxation.
    2. The Board of Instruction having failed to give an estimate of sources of revenue, It Is competent for the County Commissioners to ascertain the necessary data in order to learn the proper amount required to be raised by tax.
    8. If the “itemized estimate" contains sums other than for the expenses of maintaining the schools, such Items should be struck out by the County Commissioners.
    4. Sums of money for "salary of County Superintendent of Schools,” and for compensation of the County Treasurer as “Treasurer of the Board of Public Instruction,” are not proper Items of the expenses of maintaining common schools to be included in the itemized estimate of school expenditures.
    5. The School Board of the county lias no authority to pay the compensation of the County Superintendent or the County Treasurer; they are county officers, to be paid as other county officers, and not to be paid out of the school funds or school taxes.
    C. Warrants outstanding, issued by the Board of Public Instruction during previous years, are receivable by law for school taxes levied by the County Commissioners; hence, In levying a sum necessary to be raised by tax, sufficient should be levied to liquidate such indebtedness so that the required amount shall be realized for maintaining the schools for the ensuing year.
    7. A return by the County Commissioners to an alternative writ of mandamus requiring them to levy a sufficient amount of county school tax, that they have levied a tax which they believe to be sufficient, Is not a good return unless they make it appear that they have levied the amount shown by the itemized estimate of the Board of Public Instruction, with proper deductions and corrections, to be actually necessary for the support of schools for the
    An alternative writ of mandamus was issued out of this court setting forth that the Eelators, the Board of Public Instruction, of Gadsden county, in June, 1879, prepared an itemized estimate of the amount of money required for the maintenance of the necessary common schools for the county of Gadsden, for the scholastic year commencing October 1, 1879, and that an official copy thereof was furnished to D. L. Kenan, the> assessor of taxes for said county, by the first Monday of July, that said estimate was a reasonable and proper amount; that the County Superintendent, on the 24th September presented to the Board of County Commissioners an official copy of such itemized estimate for their consideration and action, and requested them to order a levy of two and a half-mills on the dollar for the school purposes aforesaid. The aggregate valuation of taxable property in said county, as assessed for 1S79, was $804,202. The “itemized estimate,” (a copy of which is annexed to the petition,) is as follows:
    “Itemized estimate of funds necessary for school operations in Gadsden county, for the-year beginning October “ 1,1S79, and ending September 30, 1880.
    “Money due teachers . $1,895.22
    “For rent or construction of school-houses. 15.00
    “For repairs of school-houses . 10.00
    “Pov/Sahyv of Superintendent of Schools.'. 500.00
    “For compensation of Tvoas. of Board of P. I. 100.00
    “For salary of teachers (then follows a list of schools in the county and the amount required for each,) aggregating for three months 2,376.00
    Total . $4,896.22”
    The Board of County Commissioners, it is alleged, refused lo order such levy as requested, but in lieu thereof ordered a levy of one and a quarter mills on the dollar, which will yield but $1,005.25, being a sum entirely insufficient to maintain the schools for the year. That again, on the second day of February, 1880, the Superintendent of Schools, in a written communication to the Board of County Commissioners, then in session, again submitted to them an official copy of said itemized estimate, and requested them to order a levy of two and half mills on the dollar for said school purposes, which request the said board likewise disregarded, and refused, and then turned over the tax book to the collector, with the levy of but one and a quarter mills of county tax for school purposes.
    And the relators being without other remedy, pray a mandamus directing the said County Commissioners to forthwith levy and assess a lax of two and one half mills on the dollar for the purposes aforesaid.
    I. The respondents in their return deny that an official copy of the itemized estimate of moneys required for school purposes was presented to the Board of County Commissioners, or a quorum of them, in session, on the 24th September, 1879, or at any other time during that year; and deny further that the itemized estimate was placed in the hands of the assessor as alleged, and that no such estimate was furnished to the clerk before the' completion of the assessment book or at any other time1, (the assessment rolls having been withdrawn from the assessor and placed in the hands of the clerk for completion.)
    II.They further say that the Board of Public Instruction having failed to furnish them with an itemized statement of the amount required within the time and the manner prescribed by law, the respondents ascertained as best they could the amount necessary to be raised, and on the 24th September, 1879, ordered a levy of one and one-fourth mills on the dollar of assessed valuation, believing that would raise a sufficient amount for the maintenance of the public schools for the year.
    III.They further say that a tax of one and one-quarter mills on the assessed valuation will
    yield the sum of . $1,005.25
    The one mill State tax will give . 804.20
    The income from the school fund. 875.00
    The license tax for sale of seed cotton. 500.00
    Making a total of. $3,184.45
    IV. The respondents further answering admit that on the second day of Pebruary, 1880, the County Superintendent submitted to them the itemized estimate, a copy of which is annexed, but that this was after the assessment of taxes was completed and the books ready to be placed in the hands of the collector, and they deny that the amount included in said estimate is exclusively necessary for the maintenance of schools, and the rent and repair of schoolhouses, but say that the item of $1,895.22 is the amount of outstanding warrants issued by the Board of Public Instruction, and is the accumulated growth of years of indebtedness and was not deemed by them a proper item to be considered in levying the school tax.
    And they deny that the items in said itemized estimate for salary of Superintendent and County Treasurer should be paid out of school funds, and say they are not proper items to be included in the levy of county school taxes.
    V. They deny that insufficient means have been provided for supporting the schools by reason of their action, but allege that they have provided ample means for paying the teachers for three months salaries required, and three of the schools contemplated in said estimate have never been established.
    VI. They further say that before the service of the alternative writ, the tax rolls, with the taxes levied thereon, were in the hands of the collector and he had already collected a large amount of taxes. v
    - VII. They deny that they were influenced by improper motives in refusing to levy a greater tax, and say, that the tax levied, together with the amounts to be derived from other sources of income, will be ample to defray all legitimate expenses of maintaining the common schools for the year, and that in view of the storms and failure of' crops for the present year, and the great expense to be met in repairing roads and bridges, they have simply desired to be as economical as possible without sacrificing public interests, and that they have not violated the law.
    
      White & Henderson for the Relators.
    
      John W. Malone and Stephens & Love, for Respondents.
   The ChieF Justice

delivered the opinion of the court.

The relators move to quash each and every of the several paragraphs of the return to the alternative writ of mandamus, except so much thereof as takes issue upon the allegations in the writ, to-wit: that the relators furnished to the assessor and to the County Commissioners the "itemized estimate” of moneys required to be raised by county tax for the support of the common schools for the current year, within the time required by law.

It is not found, upon examination of the remaining several paragraphs, taken separately or collectively, that the respondents show that they have directed the levy of a sum required to be raised by county tax sufficient to maintain the common schools of the county for the year, as shown by the itemized estimate made by the Board of Public Instruction and delivered to them before the tax rolls had been delivered to the collector. That the estimate was so delivered and brought to their attention, is expressly admitted in their return.

The relators give a copy of the itemized estimate furnished to the assessor and also to the respondents, 4s the relators allege, and the respondents also exhibit a copy of it, as furnished to them before the issuing of the tax roll and warrant for collection.

This itemized estimate reads thus:

"Itemized estimate of funds necessary for school operations in Gadsden county, for the year beginning October "1, T879, and ending September 30, 1880.
"Money due teachers . $1,895.22
"For rent or construction of school-houses. 15.00
“For repair of school-houses . 10.00
"For salary of Superintendent of Schools. 500.00
"For compensation of Treas. of Board of P. 1. 100.00
"For salaries of teachers (3 months school in each locality) aggregating . 2,376.00
Total.$4,896.22”
The form used purports to have been prepared by the State Superintendent. This estimate shows merely the estimated expenditures. The County Board of Instruction should give in their statement, for the information of the Count}' Commissioners, an estimate of the revenue derivable from the income of the State School Fund, the State school tax, and any other sources; calculated upon the basis of the revenue of former years, and these items, deducted from the total estimated expenditures, will give proximately the amount required to be raised by county taxation for the support of schools. The County Commissioners, however, in this instance ascertained the amounts which they say are to be derived from the several sources, and until otherwise shown, we will assume their calculations to be correct. They say that the amount to be derived from the one mill State school tax will be $804.20; from the income of the school fund, $875; and from license taxes for the sale of seed cotton, $500; making $2,179.20. The residue of the amount required must be raised by a county tax, not to exceed two and one-half mills on the dollar of assessed-valuation, as limited by the act of 1879.
What is this residue?

The gross sum is estimated by the School Board at $4,-896.22. If there are any "items”1 in their estimate -which are not proper items of expenses for maintaining the schools, it was proper for the County Commissioners to deduct them from the estimate. One of these items is for salary of County Superintendent, $500, and another is for the compensation of the Treasurer of the Board of Instruction. The County -Commissioners very properly struck out these two items, as not being lawfully included in the estimate of expenses for maintaining the public schools, or to be paid out of the monies raised by tax for school purposes. The compensation of county officers should not be paid out of school funds. By the Constitution, the County Superintendent and County Treasurer are county officers, and their compensation, as regulated by law, should be paid out of funds raised for the ordinary purposes of county government, in the same manner as other county charges are paid. The School Board has no lawful right to pay the salary or fees of county officers.

Each county is required by the Constitution to pay its own officers, under such regulation^ as may be prescribed by law. (Art. XVI., sec. 18.)

(Whether paragraph 12, sec. 19 of chap. 1686, laws of 1869, which authorized Boards of Public Instruction to fix the compensation of County Superintendents, is in conflict with sec. 27 of Art. IV., or with sec. 4 of Art. XVI. of the Constitution, is a question not involved in this case, and is therefore not considered.)

Chapter 2085, laws of 1877, makes the County Treasurer the “Treasurer of the School -Funds,” and his compensation is established by the provisions of chapter 1981, laws of 1874, which prohibit him from receiving any other fees or compensation than that allowed by this chapter, to-wit: a certain per cent, upon all monies received and all monies paid out. To pay him an extra amount as “Treasurer of the Board of Public Instruction” is not warranted by law, but is prohibited. In his settlement with the Board of County Commissioners, he will be paid the compensation as fixed by law, out of the proper funds of the county and not from school money.

Deducting from the cstimUte of the School Board the $600 named as salary and compensation of the superintendent and treasurer, leaves the sum of $4,296.22. It is claimed by the respondents that the sum of $1,895.22 is for the payment of past indebtedness of the School Board for hire of teachers and other expenses, represented by outstanding warrants issued by the board during previous years and remaining unpaid, and that because this is not for the expense of maintaining the schools for the current year, it should not be included in the estimate and collected by tax for school purposes. By the revenue laws all school orders are receivable for county school taxes. This $1,-895.22 of school orders, being so receivable for the county schools taxes of the current year, will more than absorb the one and one-quarter mills which the Commissioners have provided, (amounting to only $1,005.25,) and thus instead of raising enough to pay the expenses of maintaining the schools there will be nothing but an old debt remaining, and the schools yet unprovided for. In other words, the sum. which the Commissioners say has been raised for the future, will, according to law, be paid out on account of past due warrants, and the schools cannot, therefore, be maintained during the necessary period of three months of the current year.

In conducting State and municipal affairs, it frequently happens that from causes not anticipated a considerable amount of taxes or other revenue remains uncollected and sometimes not. collectable, and this causes deficiencies in the funds to meet obligations incurred, for which warrants upon the treasury have been drawn. Upon the ascertainment of such deficiency, such warrants being receivable for taxes, unless provision is made for meeting it, the warrants already drawn will inevitably come into the treasury in the payment of taxes levied for the purpose of meeting future necessities, and thus leave the future unprovided fQr. This is a contingency not contemplated by the Legislature in respect to common schools. The law requires that a sufficient sum shall be raised to meet the expenses of maintaining the schools for the year, and this cannot be done unless the deficiencies are first provided for, so that the school revenues may be applied for the purposes contemplated by the law. In no other way can a sum sufficient to maintain the schools be realized.

It was, therefore, necessary either to abandon the schools for the year or to provide for maintaining them. The Constitution, the Legislature, public policy, all require that they shall he maintained.

Provision, therefore, for cancelling this indebtedness (if it be legitimate, which is not questioned here,) was necessary, and it was proper to include it in ascertaining what amount must be raised for maintaining the schools.

The sum of $4,296.22 being found as the sum required to meet past and present emergencies, is in part provided for, as it is now understood, as follows:

The one mill State tax yields. $804.20
Income of the State School Fund. 875.00
Income from licensing sale of seed cotton. 500.00
Thus estimating a revenue of.$2,179.20
The Commissioners have caused a levy to be made of one and one-quarter mills for school purposes, which will bring. 1,005.25
Making in all. $3,184.45 being $1,111.77 less than the amount required, assuming that the foregoing estimates will be fully realized by the County Treasurer.

The motion to quash the return as- insufficient is allowed, except so much thereof as relates to the deduction of six hundred dollars from the itemized estimate of money required for school purposes, and so much thereof as relates to the deduction from the aggregate estimate of the revenues reasonably expected to be derived from the other sources mentioned in said return.

On the third day of April, 1880, the relators entered a motion for a peremptory writ, and notice of such motion having been served on the respondents, and no objection being made, an order was entered for the peremptory writ to issue returnable on the eighth day of April,, and the writ issued accordingly. On the seventh day of April, the respondents moved the court to vacate the order allowing the peremptory writ, on the ground that it required the performance of an illegal act, and was improvidently granted, and on the next day the court granted the motion and quashed the writ, and on the same day the relators moved to amend the alternative writ by striking out such language as. requires the Board of County Commissioners to “assess” the tax and the words “and to deliver the assessment roll to the Collector of Kevenue for Gadsden county,” and to insert in lieu of the last words stricken out, “and that they give notice of such levy to the Assessor of Gadsden county.” The motion to amend was granted, and respondents thereupon filed their return to the alternative writ as amended, showing a substantial compliance with the mandate of the court, and relators not objecting, it was adjudged that respondents had substantially complied witli such mandate, and that the respondents pay the costs, except those of the peremptory writ, the costs of which the relators were ordered to pay.  