HENRY L. COE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment denying a motion to quash an execution against a stockholder, holding that while the statute in question might present difficulties for others, the current appellant had not demonstrated he was within the class of those who could justly complain.
No, a party cannot challenge the constitutionality of a statute if they have not shown they are among those who can justly complain of its provisions.
“The statute presents many difficulties, that may arise as to others not similarly situated, and may as such be beyond the power of the legislature; but the party now before this Court has not brought himself within the class who may justly complain, and the judgment as to him, upon the authority of our former holding, is, therefore, affirmed.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the judgment, emphasizing that the appellant had not shown he was a proper party to challenge the statute's constitutionality.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry L. Coe, a stockholder in a company with no assets, sought to quash an execution issued against him. This followed a prior hearing where defenses…
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 Statutory Constitutionality cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Upon the return of the mandate of this court upon the former hearing of this case, subnomine Armour Fertilizer Works v. Parish Vegetable & Fruit Co., 63 Fla. 64, 58 South. Rep. 231, a judgment was entered denying the motion to quash the execution issued against Henry L. Coe, as a stockholder of the Vegetable Company, which had no assets whereon to levy. To this judgment Coe prosecutes his writ of error. Coe does not claim that he was in fact a stockholder, nor that there remains no balance due upon his stock, nor seek to interpose any of the defenses pointed out as open to him upon the former hearing, but stands boldly on his attack upon the constitutionality of the act and by a proceeding unknown to our practice. There does not appear to have been any forceable seizure of any property of the said Coe, other than the formal levy upon realty, which does not interfere with the owner’s possession.
The statute presents many difficulties, that may arise as to others not similarly situated, and may as such be beyond the power of the legislature; but the party now before this Court has not brought himself within the class who may justly complain, and the judgment as to him, upon the authority of our former holding, is, therefore, affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, JJ.,. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- COE v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1915)
- Armour Fertilizer Works v. Parrish Vegetable & Fruit Co., 63 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1912)