REX SWEAT, SHERIFF,
v.
B. R. DALEY
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 reversed a lower court's injunction against the sheriff for seizing slot machines, holding that courts of equity should not enjoin enforcement of valid criminal statutes even when the targeted property's legal status is disputed, absent special circumstances such as probable unconstitutionality or multiplicity of suits.
Courts of equity should not enjoin police officers from seizing property under a valid criminal statute merely because the property's status under that statute is disputed, unless the statute is probably unconstitutional or enforcement would create burdensome multiplicity of suits. The disputed legal character of the slot machines and lack of prior criminal adjudication precluded equitable relief.
“Courts of equity should not enjoin proceedings under a valid criminal statute, although the acts of the accused may ultimately be held not to be within its provisions, and the threatened proceedings under the criminal law may be destructive of property rights in the meantime, where the asserted rights prayed to be protected by the injunction, sought, are of doubtful validity under the criminal statute in controversy, and have never been duly submitted for adjudication in the courts of criminal jurisdiction.”
States the core rule that equity courts should not enjoin criminal enforcement when property rights are disputed and have not been adjudicated in criminal court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sheriff of Duval County seized slot machines alleged to be gambling devices in violation of state law. The machines were constructed primarily as …
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 Unconstitutional Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree of the Circuit Court granting a permanent injunction against the Sheriff of Duval County perpetually restraining him from seizing, molesting, taking, interfering with or preventing, directly or indirectly, the operation of certain described *756.slot machines shown to have been seized by the sheriff as prohibited gambling devices, and decreeing the return to complainant of the seized machines.
Slot machines are not unlawful per se but may be unlawful and subject to seizure if constructed or permitted to be operated as gambling devices in violation of Section 7657 C. G. L., 5499 R. G. S., Kirk v. Morrison, 108 Fla. 144, 146 Sou. Rep. 215.
A slot machine shown to be constructed principally as a vending device for dispensing small articles of merchandise such as candy, mints, confections ,and the like, but which in addition is s'o designed as to be operated by the insertion of a coin therein whereby the player of same in any event receives the article of merchandise offered to be vended in consideration of the coin, but may for his money also win something additional in the form of checks, slugs or other metallic symbols or objects that can be used for again operating the same machine, or retained by the recipient for the purpose of operating other machines of like character wherever situated, or which may be kept and enjoyed by the recipient for whatever may be their intrinsic value or 'worth as pieces of metal, souvenirs and the like, is not as ‘a matter of law such a nongambling device that a court of equity should undertake to enjoin the sheriff or other police officers of a county from seizing and holding such slot machine, subject to the order of a court of criminal jurisdiction, to be used as evidence against the owners or operators thereof, and afterward disposed of as the court of criminal jurisdiction shall direct.
Courts of equity should not enjoin proceedings under a valid criminal statute, although the acts of the accused may .ultimately be held not to be within its provisions, and the threatened 'proceedings under the criminal law may 'be de*757structive of property rights in the meantime, where the asserted rights prayed to be protected by the injunction, sought, are of doubtful validity under the criminal statute in controversy, and have never been duly submitted for adjudication in the courts of criminal jurisdiction. Littleton v. Burgess, 14 Wyo. 173, 82 Pac. Rep. 864, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 631; Old Dominion Tel. Co. v. Powers, 140 Ala. 220, 37 Sou. Rep. 195; Biddles v. Enright, 239 N. Y. 354; 146 N. E .Rep. 625, 39 A. L. R. 766; Cutsinger v. City of Atlanta, 142 Ga. 555, 83 S. E. Rep. 263, Ann. Cas. 1916-C 280, L. R. A. 1915-B 1097; Carey v. City of Atlanta, 143 Ga. 192, 84 S. E. Rep. 456, Ann. Cas. 1916-E 1151, L. R. A. 1915- D 684; Chambers v. Batchel, 55 Fed. (2nd) 851.
Where a statute is probably unconstitutional and its enforcement affects property or personal rights or if valid involves a multiplicity of suits that would render a defense against attempted enforcement in a particular instance unduly burdensome on property or personal rights before a final decision could be rendered for their protection, the rule is different. Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, 60 L. Ed. 131, Ann. Cas. 1917-B, 283, L. R. A. 1916- D 545, Note L. R. A. 1916-C 271; Maxcy, Inc., v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 Sou. Rep. 121.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Boring, 121 Fla. 781 (Fla. 1935)…ion of Florida, exempting certain homesteads from taxation, should be held to mean “exempted from all taxation when not restrained by the Federal Constitution.” This court said also in the case of Gray, Secretary of State, v. Winthrop, 115 Fla. 721, 156 So. 720, the following: “Applicable provisions of Federal Constitution within their proper sphere of operation are dominant authority in the interpretation and enforcement of state constitutional provisions [*794] which may be affected by Federal organic pr…
-
Bertram C. Ellison v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 166 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…, 1946, 157 Fla. 838, 27 So. 2d 108; Stocks v. Lee, 1940, 144 Fla. 627, 198 So. 211; Ruff v. Fisher, 1934, 115 Fla. 247, 155 So. 642; Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387, 61 S.Ct. 962, 85 L.Ed 1416, 28 Am.Jur. Injunctions §§ 237, 241; Sweat v. Daley, 1934, 116 Fla. 755, 756, 156 So. 720; Blitch v. City of Ocala, 1940, 142 Fla. 612, 195 So. 406; City of Miami Beach v. The Texas Co., 1940, 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368, 128 A.L.R. 350; City of Miami Beach v. R. & G. Inc., Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 754. In concluding tha…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Robert L. Shevin v. The Honorable E. L. Eastmoore, 286 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1973)…nts. See 42 Am.Jur.2d Injunctions §§ 175, 176. Cf. Malone v. Howell (1939), 140 Fla. 693, 192 So. 224; McWhorter v. Pensacola & Atlantic Railroad Co., 24 Fla. 417, 5 So. 129; Hathaway v. Munroe (1929), 97 Fla. 28, 119 So. 149; Sweat v. Daley (1934), 116 Fla. 755, 156 So. 720; Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale (Fla.App.1964), 166 So. 2d 797. There is ample authority in the County Judge under appropriate court rules prescribed by this Court and statutes governing criminal proceedings for him to exercise com…
Authorities Cited
- Truax & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ariz. v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1915)
- L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1931)
- Kirk v. Angus Morrison, 108 Fla. 144 (Fla. 1933)