Bryant v. Gray
| Decision Date | 23 February 1954 |
| Parties | BRYANT v. GRAY, Secretary of State, et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Farris C. Bryant of Green & Bryant, Ocala, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Howard S. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for R. A. Gray, Secretary of State.
J. Lewis Hall, Tallahassee, for J. Brailey Odham.
Ausley, Collins & Ausley and Ben C. Willis, Tallahassee, for LeRoy Collins.
This is a suit seeking a declaratory judgment filed in the Circuit Court of Leon County.
In the case of State ex rel. Ayres v. Gray, Fla., 69 So.2d 187, we held that it was necessary to hold an election at the General Election in November, 1954, to elect a Governor to serve for the balance of the unexpired term of the late Dan T. McCarty, beginning on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, 1955.
The petitioner seeks a final decree construing Sections 2 and 19 of Article IV of the State Constitution, F.S.A.
As a basis for a declaratory decree the petitioner alleges that he is legally eligible to become a candidate for the office of Governor of Florida and for nomination by a recognized political party and 'is prepared to comply with the provisions of Chapter 99 of Florida Statutes 1953 [F.S.A.], relating to qualification of candidates for nomination and election to the office of Governor of the State of Florida'. Petitioner also alleges that he is 'desirous of seeking election in the general election of 1956 for a full term as Governor of the State of Florida' but that he is in doubt as to whether, if he seeks election in 1954 and is elected Governor of Florida for the unexpired term, he may thereafter seek re-election in the General Election of 1956. Petitioner is 'prepared' to become and 'desirous' of becoming a candidate, but at no place does he allege specifically that he will become a candidate for the unexpired term or for the full term. He alleges that he is in doubt as to whether or not he could seek re-election to the office of Governor at the General Election in 1956 in the event he should seek, and be elected to the office of Governor for the unexpired term in the General Election to be held in 1954.
R. A. Gray, Secretary of State, Brailey Odham and LeRoy Collins who are candidates for nomination for the office of Governor in the Primary Election to be held in 1954 for the unexpired term of the late Dan T. McCarty, are made defendants, or respondents.
In the answer filed by the Honorable R. A. Gray, Secretary of State, it is stated:
'* * * However, this defendant avers that said question does not presently involve his official duties under Section 199.13, F.S. [F.S.A.], and related statutes, concerning political party candidates who may desire to qualify in the 1954 primaries for nomination for the office of Governor for said residue of term and concerning party nominees and others who may desire to run in the 1954 general election for the office of Governor for said residue of term; hence, said question involves no immediate official duties of this defendant. * * *'
In the answer filed by the Honorable LeRoy Collins, it is stated:
'* * * That he is not now personally concerned with, nor interested in, his own eligibility to be a candidate in any other election, or for any term other than the one for which he is now a candidate; That the program which he will present to the people of Florida in the forthcoming election will be directed to the said unexpired portion of the term for which Dan McCarty was elected, and no other term.'
In the answer filed by the Honorable Brailey Odham, it is stated:
'* * * that he has qualified with the defendant Secretary of State as a candidate for nomination and election to said office for the residue of the term of the late Governor Dan McCarty, and has presented and will present his candidacy to the people of the State of Florida without regard to the question of whether or not this defendant will be eligible for re-election to the office of Governor of Florida in the general election to be held in the year 1956.
'Further answering said Petition, this defendant says that in furtherance of his candidacy he has and will present to the people of the State of Florida his program for operation of the affairs of the State of Florida for and during the residue of the term of the late Governor Dan McCarty, and that no controversy exists between him and the petitioner herein as to whether or not this defendant, if elected to the office of Governor of Florida in the general election of 1954, will be eligible for re-election to said office in the general election to be held in the year 1956, and that the question presented in said Petition does not and will not affect this defendant in offering of his candidacy to the people of the State of Florida for the residue of the term aforesaid.'
It, therefore, appears that there is no immediate or present controversy between the appellant, Bryant, on the one hand, and the Honorable R. A. Gray, as Secretary of State, Honorable Brailey Odham or Honorable LeRoy Collins, on the other hand.
The appellant, Bryant, says that he is desirous of being a candidate for a full term in the election in 1956 and might be a candidate for the unexpired term in 1954. He is not sure. In order that he might be assisted in making up his mind in coming to a decision, the petition for declaratory decree was filed, praying for a decree concerning matters which may, or may not, materialize. If he decides to run for Governor in the 1954 primaries for the Democratic nomination for the unexpired term of the late Dan T. McCarty, and if he is nominated and elected in November, 1954, and if he lives until January, 1955 and becomes Governor and if he serves out the unexpired term, and if in the meantime there has been no constitutional amendment affecting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kneip v. Herseth
...or elected. State v. Rosellini, 1960, 55 Wash.2d 554, 348 P.2d 971; Talton v. Dickinson, 1954, 261 Ala. 11, 72 So.2d 723; Bryant v. Gray, 1954, Fla., 70 So.2d 581; Barber v. Circuit Court for Marathon County, 1922, 178 Wis. 468, 190 N.W. 563; 22 Am.Jur.2d, Declaratory Judgments, §§ 25, 26, ......
-
Martinez v. Scanlan
...courts. May v. Holley, 59 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.1952) (emphasis added). Accord Williams v. Howard, 329 So.2d 277 (Fla.1976); Bryant v. Gray, 70 So.2d 581 (Fla.1954). Thus, although a court may entertain a declaratory action regarding a statute's validity, there must be a bona fide need for su......
-
Holley v. Adams
...appellees maintain that Holley only seeks advice as to his future action and is not entitled to relief under the decision in Bryant v. Gray,70 So.2d 581 (Fla.1954). The Bryant case, a suit for declaratory decree, sought a construction of the constitutional provision declaring the Governor i......
-
State v. Simmons
...King, 38 So.2d 823 (Fla.1949), militate strongly against issuing what would be only an advisory decision in this case. See Bryant v. Gray, 70 So.2d 581 (Fla.1954). In sum, because (a) there is no present controversy actually affecting the prospective rights of the parties to whom the order ......