THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. H. SKALEY, 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 court reviewed a lower court's decision to discharge a petitioner held in custody under a statute regulating podiatry. The appellate court found the statute invalid because the House and Senate passed versions with different titles, meaning the bill approved by the Governor was not the same bill passed by both houses.
No, the Act did not become law because the House and Senate passed versions of the bill with different titles, meaning the bill approved by the Governor was not the same bill passed by both legislative chambers.
“When the validity of a statute is challenged on the ground that it had not been passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the legislative journals afford the controlling evidence.”
Establishes the method for verifying legislative passage.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA petitioner was held in custody under a 1927 act regulating podiatry. The petitioner sought discharge through habeas corpus, arguing the act was inva…
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.
The writ of error herein was allowed and taken under the statute from a final order discharging a petitioner in habeas corpus proceedings before a Circuit Judge in Hillsborough County.
*507Petitioner was held in custody pursuant to a conviction under Chapter 12197, Acts of 1927, entitled “An Act regulating the practice of Podiatry; providing for the examination and licensing of Podiatrists and penalties for violation of this Act;” and the discharge of petitioner followed an adjudication that the Act is invalid because it had not been duly passed by each House of the Legislature as is required by Section 17, Article III of the Constitution.
When the validity of a statute is challenged on the ground that it had not been passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the legislative journals afford the controlling evidence.
The Senate Journal of 1927, page 2044 shows the following:
. “Senate Bill No. 87:
“A bill to be entitled An Act regulating the practice of Podiatry; providing for the examination and licensing of Podiatrists and penalties for violation of this Act.
“Was taken up and was read the second time in full.
“Mr. Wagg moved that the rules be waived and that Senate Bill No. 87 be read the third time in full and put upon its passage.
“Which was agreed to by a two thirds vote.
“And Senate Bill No. 87, with title above stated, was read the third time in full.
“Upon call of the roll on the passage of the bill the vote was:
“Yeas — Mr. President; Senators Caro, Cobb, Dell, Ether-edge, Cary, Gillis, Glynn, Hodges, Jennings, McCall, Malone, MitcheÜ, Overstreet, Phillips, Putnam, Smith, Swearingen, Taylor (11th Dist.), Turner, Wagg, Walker, Waybright— 23.
*508“Nays — None.
“So the bill passed, title as stated.
“And the same was ordered to be certified to the House of Representatives under the rule.”
The House Journal of 1927 shows the following, pages 3876-7: ■
“Senate Bill No. 87.
“A bill to be entitled An Act regulating the practice of pediatry; providing for the examination and licensing of Pediatrists and penalties for violation of this Act.
“Was taken up.
“Mr. McKenzie (Lake) moved that the rules be waived and that Senate Bill No. 87 be read a second time by its title only.
“Which was agreed to by a two-thirds vote.
“And Senate Bill No. 87 was read a second time by its title only.
“Mr. McKenzie (Lake) moved that the rules be further waived and that Senate Bill No. 87 be read a third time in full and put upon its passage.
“Which was agreed to by a two-thirds vote.
“And Senate Bill No. 87 was read a third time in full.
“Upon call of the roll on the passage of the bill, the vote was:
“Yeas — Mr. Speaker; Messrs. Andrews (Orange), Andrews (Union), Auvil, Bales, Bell, Bonifay, Booth (Frank J., Pinellas), Bryant, Bullard (Polk), Bullard (Walton), Burns, Byrd, Carr, Carn, Carroll, Catts, Christian, Churchwell, Collier, Corry, Conely, Creel, Crews (Duval)’ Davidson, Edwards, Ellis, Ezell, Farnell, Frisbee, Getzen, Hagan (Seminole), Plagan (Waukulla), Harper, Harris, Hendry (Taylor), Hobson Householder, Jackson *509(St. Johns), Jackson (St. Lucie), Kanner, Kennedy, Ketchum, King, Lewis, Lowe, Millinor, MacKenzie (Lake), McKenzie (Putnam), McKenney, O’Neil, Oliver, Perry, Philips, Register, Sale, Scofield,' Smith, Stalnaker, Stephens, Thomas, Tervin, Warran, Wilson, Wynn — 65.
“Nays — None.
“So the bill passed, title as stated.
“And the same was ordered certified to the Senate.”
It is not shown that the quoted entries in the House Journal were questioned or in any way changed or amended.
It thus appears that the Senate passed Senate Bill No. 87 regulating the practice of Podiatry, while the House passed ■Senate Bill No. 87 regulating the practice of Pediatry,'the two words having essentially different meaning.
After giving the vote showing final passage by the House of Senate Bill No. 87 regulating the practice of Pediatry, the House Journal states: “So the bill passed, title as stated.”
Such entries do not appear to have been changed by any entry in the House Journal.
As the House Journal shows that Senate Bill No. 87 as passed by the House and a title essentially different from the title to Senate Bill No. 87, which the Senate Journal shows' was passed by the Senate, the bill referred to in the Journals as Senate Bill No. 87 which was approved by the Governor and published as a statute did not become a law.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., •concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Temple Terrace Assets Co., 111 Fla. 368 (Fla. 1933)…suggested that the Act as filed in the office of the Secretary of State and published never [*373] passed both branches of the Legislature in the manner provided by the Constitution. The recent case of State v. Skaley, filed March 1, 1933, reported 146 Sou. 544, is in point and controlling. In that case we said: “When the validity of a statute is challenged on the ground that it had not been passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the legislative journals afford the controlling evidence…
-
State v. Lee, 122 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1936)…d Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, J., dissents. * As expressly permitted to be done if agreed to by a two-thirds vote. See Section 17 of Article III, Constitution of Florida. * Freeman v. Simmons, 107 Fla. 438, 145 Sou. Rep. 187; State v. Skaley, 108 Fla. 506, 146 Sou. Rep. 544; State, ex rel. Indian River Mosquito Control Dist., v. Helseth, 104 Fla. 208, 140 Sou. Rep. 655; Volusia County v. State, 98 Fla. 1166, 125 Sou. Rep. 375; Hillsborough County v. Temple Terrace Assets Co., 111 Fla. 368, 149 Sou. R…
-
Messer v. Jackson, 126 Fla. 678 (Fla. 1936)…: “The bill as passed by the House and approved by the Governor and published as a statute according to the Senate Journal was never passed by that body and, therefore, never became a law.” (See State v. Skaley, supra.) The case of State v. Skaley, 108 Fla. 506, 146 Sou. 544, involved an Act known as Senate Bill No. 87, which in the Senate referred to the practice of podiatry, while in the House Senate Bill No. 87, appeared to regulate the practice of pediatry. It was held that because of the difference in…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence