MANUEL CORRELIS, PLANTIFF 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.
Manuel Correlis was convicted of unlawfully dealing in liquor in November-December 1918 as a second offense. He challenged the conviction arguing that an amended Florida constitutional provision prohibiting liquor sales had superseded the local option provisions, but the Supreme Court held that the amendment did not take effect until January 1, 1919, so the conviction under the pre-existing local option law was valid.
The amended Article XIX did not take effect until January 1, 1919, as expressly provided in the amendment text. Therefore, the prior Article XIX provisions allowing local option sales remained in force during November-December 1918, and a conviction for violating the local option statute during that period was authorized by law.
“Article XIX providing for local option sales of intoxicating liquors remained in force until January 1, 1919, when it was superseded by the amendment to Article XIX forbidding the manufacture, sale, barter or exchange of alcoholic or intoxicating liquors and beverages in this State”
Establishes the core holding that the prior local option provisions remained valid during the period of the alleged violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorrelis was convicted of unlawfully engaging in the business of a liquor dealer between November 11 and December 5, 1918, as a second offense. An ame…
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.
Whitfield, J.
— Correlis was convicted of the statutory offense of unlawfully engaging in the business of a dealer in liquor between November 11th and December 5th, 1918, being a second offense. On writ of error it is contended for him that the amendment to Article NIX of the Constitution, forbidding liquor sales in the State, adopted November 5th, 1918, then superseded the former provisions of Article XIX, under which local option sales were had, but that amended Article XIX did not take effect till January 1st, 1919, “hence at the time of the alleged sales, there was no provision in our Constitution for local option legislation, nor was there any provision in the Constitution prohibiting the sale of liquor, wine or beer prior to January 1st, 1919.”
Amended Article XIX of the State Constitution Is as follows:
“That Article XIX of the Constitution of the State of Florida, be and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
“Article XIX, Section 1. The manufacture, sale, barter or exchange of all alcoholic or intoxicating liquors and beverages, whether spirituous, vinous or malt, are hereby forever prohibited in the State of Florida, except alcohol for medical, scientific or mechanical purposes, and wine for sacramental purposes; the sale of which alcohol and wine for the purposes aforesaid, shall be regulated by law.
“Sec. 2. The Legislature shall enact suitable laws for the enforcement of the provisions of this article.
“Sec. 3. This article shall go into effect on the first day of January, A. D. 1919.
“Approved April 18, 1917.”
By the terms of this amendment it was to “go into effect on the first day of January, A. D. 1919.” This of itself rescued the amendment from the provision of Article XVII by which amendments to the Constitution become effective upon receiving the approving majority of the votes of the electors at the election. Criminal Costs Amendment, Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 34 Fla. 500, 16 South. Rep. 410; In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 15 Fla. 735; see also, Basnett v. City of Jacksonville, 19 Fla. 664. In those cases the amendments did not fix a day subsequent to the adoption for the amendment to take effect. 12 C. J. 721.
Article XIX providing for local option sales of intoxicating liquors remained in force until January 1, 1919, when it was superseded by the amendment to Article XIX forbidding the manufacture, sale,- barter or exchange of alcoholic or intoxicating liquors and beverages in this •State, therefore, a conviction for a violation in November and December, 1918, of the local option provisions of the statute was authorized by law.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neisel v. Moran, 80 Fla. 98 (Fla. 1919)…regulate the possession and transportation of intoxicating liquors in dry counties, was by implication restrained by Original Article XIX, under which the sale of intoxicating liquors was prohibited by local option elections. In Correlis v. State, 78 Fla. 44, 82 South. Rep. 601, it was held that Amended Article XIX of the State Constitution took effect and became operative on January 1, 1919, and on that date entirely superseded original Article XIX. Amended Article XIX was only potentially efficacious…1 / 3
-
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 91 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1956)…0, 16 So. 410. “This section has also been construed by your body to allow an amendment to vary from this rule if the effective date is placed in the amendment setting an effective date other than the day of the general election, Correlis v. State, 78 Fla. 44, 82 So. 601. “The amendment as adopted places a mandatory duty upon me to appoint this additional circuit judge. Although it is clear that the appointive power arises on a day certain, it is not clear from the amendment or the applicable cases as t…
Authorities Cited
- Basnett v. The City of Jacksonville, 19 Fla. 664 (Fla. 1883)
- In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 34 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1895)
- In re the Executive Commc'n of October 5, 15 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1875)