STATE, EX REL. J. A. BECHARD,
v.
E. B. LEATHERMAN, AS CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, DADE COUNTY
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.
A Florida Supreme Court case addressing constitutional challenges to Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937, brought through a mandamus proceeding. The court largely relies on its companion decision in James Messer, Sr. v. Paul V. Lang and prior precedent to reject the relator's constitutional objections.
The motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus is granted. The court's holding on the constitutional questions is that they are concluded by Ridgeway v. Peacock and cases cited in the companion decision, or if not concluded by those authorities, they lack merit.
“at the time the alternative writ was issued, it was brought to the attention of the Court that the questions involved were similar to those raised in the last cited case so the writ was granted on the theory that they were companion cases and would be disposed of together”
Explains the court's procedural decision to treat this case and James Messer as companion cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator sought a peremptory writ of mandamus against E. B. Leatherman, as Clerk of the Circuit Court for Dade County. The case involved questions …
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 Single Subject Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a proceeding in Mandamus in which the identical and some additional questions are raised to those considered in James Messer, Sr., v. PauhV. Lang, et al., decided this date. It is first suggested that the constitutional questions raised should not be answered because relator is attempting to substitute mandamus for writ of error.
We pretermit any discussion'or expression of opinion on this point for the reason that at the time the alternative writ was issued, it was brought to the attention of the Court that the questions involved were similar to those raised in the last cited case so the writ was granted on the theory that they were companion cases and would be disposed of together.
On examination of the record, we find the main questions raised to be identical with those raised and considered in James Messer, Sr., v. Paul V. Lang, et al., decided this date so what we said in that case is conclusive of and disposes of them.
The additional questions raised in this case are that Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937, (1) pledges the State’s credit con- ■ trary to Section 10 of Article IX of the Constitution, (2) embraces more than one subject and matter properly connected therewith contrary to Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution, and (3) violates Article II of the Constitution in that it delegates powers to one department properly belonging to the other.
These questions have been examined but we think they are all concluded by Ridgeway v. Peacock, 100 Fla. 1297, 131 So. 140 and other cases cited in the companion case of James Messer, Sr., v. Paul V. Lang, et al., or if not so concluded, they are without merit. We have not over*587looked the division of questions in brief of Weintraub and Baskin and other counsel who appeared in these cases.
The motion for peremptory writ of mandamus is accor.dingly granted.'
It is so ordered.
Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boston & Fla. Atl. Coast Land Co. v. Ricker Alford & Madison Realty Co., 150 Fla. 296 (Fla. 1942)…body of the Act should by clear, definite and concise language grant such power and authority, because Acts of this nature are strictly construed. See Messer v. Lang, 129 Fla. 546, 176 So. 548, 113 A. L. R. 1073; State ex rel. Bechard v. Leatherman, 129 Fla. 585, 176 So. 563. There is no language in the title or body of the Act, or any reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom which grants or confers upon courts of chancery additional power to hear and determine tax certificate foreclosures. If such suits…
Authorities Cited
- Townsend Burns Ridgeway and J. Louis Houle v. Peacock, 100 Fla. 1297 (Fla. 1930)