SEABOARN LAND, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Seaboarn Land was convicted of operating an illegal liquor dealing business in a county that had voted against such sales. He challenged his conviction on habeas corpus, arguing that certain sections of the governing statute were unconstitutional, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that he lacked standing to challenge provisions that did not affect the crime for which he was charged.
The court held that a statute will not be declared invalid at the instance of one not prejudiced by its enforcement or affected by it. The defendant lacked standing to challenge Sections 3 and 4 because he was charged under Section 2, which was not questioned as invalid and was not necessarily dependent upon the validity of Sections 3 and 4.
“The principle involved is that a statute will not be declared invalid at the instance of one not prejudiced by its enforcement, nor affected by it.”
Establishes the standing doctrine that denies the defendant's challenge to sections he was not prosecuted under.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeaboarn Land was tried and convicted in the County Judge's Court of Santa Rosa County for engaging in and carrying on the business of a dealer in int…
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 County Judge'S Court cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
— Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the' County Judge’s Court of Santa Rosa County of the crime of engaging in and carrying on the business of a dealer in intoxicating liquors in the county of .Santa Rosa, which county had theretofore voted against the sale of such liquors. He was sentenced to a term of thirty (30) days in tlie county jail and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars ($100) and costs, and in default of the payment of such fine and costs to be confined in the county jail for an additional period of ninety (90) days.
Upon habeas corpus proceedings he was remanded by the Circuit Judge to the custody of the sheriff, and from the judgment remanding him was allowed and took writ of error from this court.
The assignments of error are that (1) the court erred in not discharging the prisoner, and (2) the court erred in remanding the prisoner to the custody of the sheriff. The sole question presented and argued in the brief of plaintiff in error in this court is the alleged constitutional invalidity of Sections three (3) and four (4) of Chapter 6179, Acts of 1911, Laws of Florida.
We fail to see the application of this argument. In the first place section three (3) of the statute has been henl valid by this court in a case in which the question of its constitutional validity was expressly passed upon because necessary in the disposition of the case. Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206, 63 South. Rep. 423; Smith v. State, 62 Fla. 91, 57 South. Rep. 348. But suppose this section should be invalid, that would avail plaintiff in error nothing because he is charged with having committed the offense denounced by section two (2) of the statute, the validity of which is not questioned.
And suppose section four (4) of the act should be found invalid, upon which question we express no opinion, and should be entirely eliminated, the county judge would still have had full and complete jurisdiction and authority to try plaintiff in error upon the charge made against him. Constitution State of Florida, Section 17, Art. 5; General Statutes of Florida, Sections 3842, 3898 and 3903.
The principle involved is that a statute will not be declared invalid at the instance of one not prejudiced by its enforcement, nor affected by it. 6 R. C. L. 89; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U. S. 415, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 137; State ex rel. Clarkson v. Philips, 70 Fla. 340, 70 South. Rep. 367; Stinson v. State, 63 Fla. 42, 58 South. Rep. 722.
It does not appear that section two (2) of this statute, under which plaintiff in error was convicted, is so related to sections three (3) and four (4) as to affect the validity of the former, even though it should be conceded that the latter are invalid for any reason.
It follows necessarily that the judgment must be affirmed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
West v. Town of Lake Placid, 97 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1929)…the appellants’ lands are situated in the Districts alleged to be favored. So upon the record, appellants’ rights to raise the questions is doubtful for that reason alone. Adams v. American A. Chemical Co., 78 Fla. 362, 82 So. R. 850; Land v. State, 77 Fla. 212; In re: DeWoody, 113 So. R. 677; State v. City of Sarasota, 109 So. R. 473. But pretermitting that question, there ensues another well established rule that is fatal to appellants’ contention. The ultimate effect of appellants’ contentions as to th…
-
Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1979)…sonal or property rights. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); State v. Champe, No. 53,811 (Fla. Dec. 14,1978); Land v. State, 77 Fla. 212, 81 So. 159 (1919). Such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy is necessary in order “to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional…
-
In re DeWoody, 94 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1927)…be heard to assail the constitutional validity thereof since his attack thereon is purely abstract. State ex rel. Johnson v. Sarasota, 109 South. Rep. 473; Adams v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 78 Fla. 362, 82 South. Rep. 850; Land v. State, 77 Fla. 212, 81 South. Rep. 159; Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792, 78 South. Rep. 693; Stinson v. State, 63 Fla. 42, 58 South. Rep. 722; State ex rel. Clarkson v. Phillips, 70 Fla. 340; 70 South. Rep. 367. Furthermore, the several sections last enumerated cou…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Edward H. Clarkson v. Philips, 70 Fla. 340 (Fla. 1915)
- Harrison Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1913)
- Stinson v. State, 63 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1912)
- Williams v. Walsh, 222 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1912)
- Smith v. State, 62 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1911)