ELBERT PEARSON, ET AL., AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAFAYETTE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
v.
L. S. TAYLOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's decision that vacated a local option election prohibiting liquor sales. The court held that pre-election deficiencies in the petition process cannot be challenged after an election has taken place; such defects must be raised before the election occurs or are waived.
The court held that the election cannot be attacked based on pre-election procedural deficiencies raised after the election. Such defects must be raised before the election takes place. Once an election is held, any preceding deficiencies are cured by the election itself and cannot be used to void the election results.
“Courts of equity do not ordinarily possess jurisdiction to entertain, suits regarding election contests in the absence of statute. 18 Am. Jur., p. 359, Sec. 272. In this state such jurisdiction is granted by statute (Section 567.12 F.S.A.) hence the relief afforded will not exceed the scope of the statute. The statute authorizing the contest does not extend to acts or omissions antedating the election.”
Establishes the limited scope of judicial authority to overturn elections—only statutory grounds are permitted, and pre-election procedural matters fall outside that scope.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCounty commissioners called a local option election regarding liquor sales prohibition. The petition submitted to call the election contained fewer th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction Of Equity Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to Section 567.12, F.S.A., a bill was filed to vacate and set aside the results of a local option election prohibiting the sale of liquor, when the pleadings were settled, and agreed statement of fact was entered into which disclosed that the *776petition submitted to the board of county commissioners for calling the election (Section 567.01, F.S.A.) contained less than 25% of the qualified electors as disclosed by the county registration books. The trial court was of the opinion that the county Commissioners were, for that reason, without jurisdiction to call the election and held the same null and void.
Courts of equity do not ordinarily possess jurisdiction to entertain, suits regarding election contests in the absence of statute. 18 Am. Jur., p. 359, Sec. 272. In this state such jurisdiction is granted by statute (Section 567.12 F.S.A.) hence the relief afforded will not exceed the scope of the statute. The statute authorizing the contest does not extend to acts or omissions antedating the election. To hold an election is to make a choice. Hall v. City of Madison, 128 Wis. 132, 107 N. W. 31; McKee v. Home S & T Co., 122 Iowa 731, 98 N.W. 609. The duties required to be done leading up to the election, while in many respects may be mandatory, are in no respect a part of the election.
The aggrieved party cannot await the outcome of the election and then assail preceding deficiencies which he might have complained of to the proper authorities before the election. See Payne v. Hodgson, 34 Utah 269, 97 Pac. 132. It is possible that the opinion in Tacker v. Board of County Commissioners, 126 Fla. 15, 170 So. 458, pursuaded the lower court to its conclusion because there we said, in effect, that the filing of a petition signed by the required members of signers was a precedent to any legal election. This statement, like all enunciations of law, must be considered in the light of the factual case before us. There we were dealing with the question raised prior to the election which is not the case here. We have recognized the difference hence it is not necessary to look to other jurisdictions. We have said that the constitution places a mandatory duty on the legislature to follow certain procedure as a necessary prerequisite to bringing about an election to amend the constitution, however, more than once we have said, in substance, that the neglect to follow such procedure was fatal if raised before the election, yet the defect was cured by the election itself. See State ex rel. Landis v. Thompson, 120 Fla. 860, 163 So. 270; Sylvester v. Tindall; 154 *777Fla. 663, 18 So. (2nd) 892; West v. State of Florida, 50 Fla. 154, 39 So. 412; Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 So. 963.
From what we have said, it follows that the decree is reversed with directions to dismiss the bill.
Reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Wadhams v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Sarasota Cnty., 567 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1990)…any defects in the form of the submission. Id. “The aggrieved party cannot await the outcome of the election and then assail preceding deficiencies which he might have complained of to the proper authorities before the election.” Pearson v. Taylor, 159 Fla. 775, 776, 32 So. 2d 826, 827 (1947). Moreover, [Republics regard the elective franchise as sacred, and the courts should not set aside an election because some official has not complied with the law governing elections, where the voter has done all in…
-
McPHERSON v. Flynn, 397 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1981)…s to contest elections. See §§ 102.168, 102.1682 Fla.Stat. (1979). Since there is no common law right to contest elections, any statutory grant must necessarily be construed to grant only such rights as are explicitly set out. See Pearson v. Taylor, 159 Fla. 775, 32 So. 2d 826 (1947). The statutory election contest has been interpreted as referring only to consideration of the balloting and counting process. State ex rel. Peacock v. Latham, 125 Fla. 69, 169 So. 597 (1936); Farmer v. Carson, 110 Fla. 245, 14…
-
First Mortg. Corp. OF Vero Beach v. Stellmon, 170 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…he vital thing, Union Indemnity Co. v. Vetter, 107 Fla. 761, 143 So. 869; and the opinion must be construed in connection with the facts in the case. Bryan v. Coconut Grove Bank & Trust Co., 101 Fla. 947, 132 So. 481, 134 So. 229; Pearson v. Taylor, 159 Fla. 775, 32 So. 2d 826. Read in the light of the facts and decision, the apparent contradiction in the opinion in Home Credit Company disappears. Although Mr. Justice Drew recognizes the “doubtful authority of Benson,” and its “anomalous * * * disregard of…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41 (Fla. 1912)
- Sylvester v. Young Tindall, 154 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1944)
- State v. Uly O. Thompson, 120 Fla. 860 (Fla. 1935)
- West v. State, 50 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1905)
- Tacker v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Polk Cnty., 127 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1936)
- Tacker v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 126 Fla. 15 (Fla. 1936)