RYALS BROTHERS
v.
L. E. MOREFIELD, ET AL.
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 lower court's dismissal of a suit seeking to enjoin the sale of impounded cattle. The court found the law under which the cattle were impounded to be constitutional, relying on precedent from a prior case with similar provisions.
Yes, House Bill No. 797 is constitutional. The court found it to be substantially similar to a previously upheld law.
“There is no material difference between the provisions of the legislative Act here under consideration and the provisions of Chapter 9580, Acts of 1923, as amended by Chapter 11024, Acts of 1925, which was under consideration by this Court in the case of Gill, et al., v. Wilder, 95 Fla. 901, 116 Sou. 870.”
Establishes the basis for applying precedent from a prior case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRyals Brothers filed suit to prevent the sheriff from selling cattle impounded under House Bill No. 797, a 1933 Florida law. Ryals Brothers argued tha…
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.
This was a suit do enjoin the sale by the sheriff of certain cattle which had been impounded .and offered for sale under the provisions of a law which was introduced and passed by the Legislature of Florida at its regular session in 1933 known as House Bill No. 797.
It was contended that the provisions of the Act under which the cattle were impounded were unconstitutional and void.
There is no material difference between the provisions of the legislative Act here under consideration and the provisions of Chapter 9580, Acts of 1923, as amended by Chapter 11024, Acts of 1925, which was under consideration by this Court in the case of Gill, et al., v. Wilder, 95 Fla. 901, 116 Sou. 870. The law as enunciated in that case is applicable to the case at bar and, therefore, the decree of the circuit court dismissing the bill of complaint should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carlton v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 95 Fla. 596 (Fla. 1928)
- Gill v. Wilder, 95 Fla. 901 (Fla. 1928)