CAROLINA-FLORIDA PLANTING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. N. MAIGE AND T. J. HAWES, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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.
Carolina-Florida Planting Company impounded cattle belonging to Maige and Hawes, claiming authority under an 1889 Florida statute permitting impounding of livestock running at large. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment for the owners, holding that the cattle were not 'running at large' within the statute's meaning and therefore the impounding was unauthorized, without addressing the statute's constitutionality.
The cattle were not 'running at large' within the statute's meaning because they had merely escaped accidentally or unknown to their owners, without any evidence of negligence or intentional design on the owners' part to permit them to run at large. The impounding statute applies only where the owner knowingly or carelessly permits stock to run without real attempt to restrain them, not to mere accidental or unknown escapes.
“If a cause can be fully disposed of without adjudicating constitutional questions raised therein, the courts will generally ignore such questions and dispose of the case on other grounds.”
Establishes the principle that courts avoid constitutional questions when a case can be decided on other grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarolina-Florida Planting Company found 14 head of cattle belonging to defendants in error in its hay field and impounded them, demanding compensation…
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 Constitutionality Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
Chapter 3945 Acts of 1889 provides that it “shall he unlawful for any live stock to run at large in” certain portions of Leon County, and that “any person may take up and impound any live stock so running at large.” Provision is also made therein for collecting certain sums from the owner of the stock, and for a sale of the stock where payment is not made.
The plaintiff in error found 14 head of cattle belonging to the defendants in error in its hay field, and after impounding them demanded compensation for the impounding. This Avas refused and in replevin the owners recoA-ered the cattle, the trial judge holding the statute to be unconstitutional.
When a case is not within the operation of a statute, the constitutionality of the statute even if questioned, may not be involved in the proper disposition of the case. If a cause can be fully disposed of without adjudicating constitutional questions raised therein, the courts will generally ignore such questions and dispose of the case on other grounds. Pensacola Electric Co. v. Soderlind, 60 Fla. 164, 53 South. Rep. 722; ex parte Bailey, 39 Fla. 734, 23 South. Rep. 522; State v. Parker, 57 Fla. 170.
If the cattle were not “running at large” within the meaning of the statute, there was no authority to impound them even though the owner of the property trespassed upon may have had his appropriate remedy in due course of law. The statute was manifestly intended to protect persons and property against depredation and danger arising from stock negligently or designedly permitted to run at large without any effort being made to keep them within proper enclosures, or to recapture them should they escape without the knowledge of the owner or notwithstanding his effort to restrain them.
When a party claims rights under an impounding statute, he should show facts bringing him within the terms and purpose of the statute.
The cattle in this case were pasturing on land that usually is covered by a lake. They were found in the impounder’s hay field in the same neighborhood, and the impounder knew the owners and gave them notice the next day. There is nothing to indicate that the owners knew the cattle were at large, or that they had gone upon the impounder’s land because of the negligence or design of the owners.
In prescribing a harsh summary remedy the statute evidently designed redress from a negligent or intentional wrong in knowingly or carelessly permitting stock to run at large without any real attempt or purpose to restrain them. A mere accidental or unknown escape of cattle does not make them “running at large” within the statute.
As the facts do not bring the case within the provisions of Chapter 3945 Acts of 1889, the constitutionality of that statute need not be, and is not considered here.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. Taylor, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rorick v. Foster, 101 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1931)…has been generally held by this court that where an appeal can be disposed of on grounds other than the alleged unconstitutionality of a statute, that the validity of the statute will not be passed on. Carolina-Florida Planting Co. v. Maige, 60 346, 64 Fla. 234. For this reason, and also because a further hearing of the motion in the Court below may result in its being granted on other grounds than the validity of the Statute, or the defendants may hereafter waive their special appear [*25] anee and enter…
-
Williams v. Dormany, 99 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1930)…remedy. In the instant case, we have no such state of facts. The owner of the animals has the right to institute replevin proceedings or to sue for damages. 3 C. J. 186; Waller v. Osban, 60 Fla. 268, 52 So. R. 970; Carolina Florida P. Co. v. Maige, 64 Fla. 234, 60 So. R. 346. The title of said Chapter 11541 reads as follows: “AN ACT Prohibiting the Owner or Persons Having the Custody and Control of Cattle, Hogs, Horses, Mules, Goats, Sheep, or Other Live Stock from Permitting the Running at Large of Suc…
-
Econ. Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc v. Cleaning, 128 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1937)…[*415] “It has been generally held by this Court that, where an appeal can be disposed of on grounds other than the alleged unconstitutionality of a statute, the validty of the statute will not be passed upon. Carolina-Florida Planting Co. v. Maige, 64 Fla. 234, 60 So. 346.” Rorick v. Stilwell, 133 So. 609, 101 Fla. 4. See also Ex Parte Lewis, 135 So. 147, 101 Fla. 624. Many other decisions of this Court could be cited. It is not necessary here to set forth the reasons for adhering to' this principle, whi…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex-Parte E. W. Bailey, 39 Fla. 734 (Fla. 1897)
- The Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Gus A. Soderlind, 60 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1910)
- State of Fla. ex rel Giocomo Russo v. Parker, 57 Fla. 170 (Fla. 1909)