J. P. RAMSEY, SHERIFF,
v.
BLANTON MARTIN
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 upheld a circuit court's decision striking down Chapter 10316 of the Special Acts of 1925 as unconstitutional. The court held that Section 14 of the Act, which imposed conditions on cattle impoundment from adjoining counties, violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Florida's Bill of Rights, and because this section was integral to legislative intent, the entire statute must fail.
The entire Act is unconstitutional and void. Section 14 violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Florida Constitution's Bill of Rights. Because Section 14 was integral to the legislative compromise and could not be eliminated without defeating the manifest legislative purpose, the entire statute must fail as unconstitutional.
“Where the unconstitutional portion of an Act cannot be declared void without defeating the manifest legislative purpose, the entire statute must fail as unconstitutional and void.”
Establishes the severability doctrine applied in this case, from State ex rel. Buford v. Spencer
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sheriff of Alachua County impounded cattle and offered them for sale under authority of Chapter 10316, Special Acts of 1925. Section 14 of the Act…
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 Legislative Purpose cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a suit to enjoin the sale of certain cattle impounded by the Sheriff of Alachua County and offered for sale under authority of Chapter 10316, Special Acts of Legislature of 1925. The Act was held unconstitutional by the learned circuit judge and appeal was taken to this Court to review his order.
The circuit judge held the Act unconstitutional and granted the injunction because Section 14 of the Act is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and to Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and because it appears from the legislative record that the obnoxious Section of the Act cannot be eliminated without causing results not contemplated or desired by the legislative body which enacted it. (Citing as authority, State ex rel. Buford v. Spencer, 81 Fla. 211, 87 Sou. 634, where this Court held) :
“Where the unconstitutional portion of an Act cannot be declared void without defeating the manifest legislative purpose, the entire statute must fail as unconstitutional and void.”
Section 14 of the Act here in controversy reads as follows :
“No cattle belonging to persons, firms or corporations whose residence or principal place of business is in a county adjoining Alachua. County shall be seized or impounded under the provision of this Act until Alachua County shall *800have constructed a legal cattle fence along its boundary line, except that no boundary line fence shall be required between Alachua County and any territory of an adjoining county' in which live stock is prohibited by law from running at large, or along any portion of the boundary line of said Alachua County which consists of a stream'of water sufficient in size and depth to prevent the crossing of cattle into said Alachua. County from adjoining counties where live stock is permitted to run at large. All cattle straying into Alachua County from adjoining territory where live stock is permitted to run at large shall be driven out of said county. For the purpose of providing the boundary line fence hereinbefore mentioned, Alachua County be and the same is hereby authorized to levy a special tax for the purpose of raising money to pay the expenses of construction of such fence as hereinbefore mentioned, which tax shall be assessed and collected as other county taxes are assessed and collected when authorized by said County.”
The legislative record shows that this Section was not in the bill as originally introduced but was added thereto by way of amendment when the bill was on the second reading.
Now, this Act affects the people in all the counties adjoining Alachua County and it is apparent, as was held by the learned circuit judge, that the representatives from those counties adjoining Alachua County were not willing for this Special Act of the Legislature to pass without the inclusion therein of Section 14 and that, therefore, without the inclusion of Section 14, or with Section 14 eliminated, the Act would not express the legislative will.
The decree appealed from should be affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Teuton v. Thomas, 100 Fla. 78, 129 Sou. 330. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
*801Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Calhoun Cnty., 126 Fla. 376 (Fla. 1936)…ct and the portion left is a [*385] completed and workable statute and where it cannot be said that the Legislature would not have enacted the remaining portions of the Act without the invalid clause which is stricken. The case of Ramsey v. Martin, 111 Fla. 798, 150 South. Rep. 256, is not in conflict with this' doctrine. The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Affirmed. Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.…
-
State v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1935)…ature,” and cited in support cases decided by this court as follows, to-wit: Almeriggoto v. Jarvis, 95 Fla. 914, 117 So. 793 (1928); Ex parte Smith, 100 Fla. 1, 128 So. 864 (1930); Teuton v. Thomas, 100 Fla. 78, 129 So. 330 (1930); Ramsey v. Martin, 111 Fla. 798, 150 So. 256 (1933); also State v. Hilburn, 70 Fla. 55, text 62, 69 So. 784, and quote from it the rule that “If any of the provisions of the Act are held to be illegal induced to any appreciable extent its passage, the entire Act fails in view of t…
-
Harris v. Baden, 154 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1944)…ge” from straying into the proposed “closed range” territory. The case of Thomas, Sheriff v. Mills, 107 Fla. 385, 144 So. 882; Teuton v. Thomas, 100 Fla. 78, 129 So. 330; Motes v. Hagan, Sheriff, 101 Fla. 995, 132 So. 676; Ramsey, Sheriff v. Martin, 111 Fla. 798, 150 So. 256; and In re Barber, 130 Fla. 342, 177 So. 708, are cited by the appellants as sustaining the proposition. It must be admitted that at first impression much that was said in Thomas v. Mills, supra, and other cases cited, would seem to su…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. Rivers H. Buford v. Spencer, 81 Fla. 211 (Fla. 1921)
- Teuton v. Thomas, 100 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1930)