Boyer v. Black
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Citation | 18 So.2d 886,154 Fla. 723 |
| Parties | BOYER v. BLACK, Sheriff. |
| Decision Date | 18 July 1944 |
18 So.2d 886
154 Fla. 723
BOYER
v.
BLACK, Sheriff.
Florida Supreme Court
July 18, 1944
Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Frank A. Smith, judge.
G. P. Garrett and Edward K. Goethe, both of Orlando, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and Howard S. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
SEBRING, Justice.
James F. Boyer was arrested upon an information in three counts charging him with violation of the Florida Uniform Sale Securities Law. The first count of the information is not material here. The second count charged petitioner with unlawfully engaging in the business of a dealer in securities issued by another person, without such securities first having been registered in the office of Florida Securities Commission. The third count charged him with unlawfully engaging in the business of a dealer in securities by selling securities issued by another person, without having first become registered as a dealer of securities in the office of Florida Securities Commission.
Boyer obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the Circuit Court of Orange County to test the legality of his restraint. On hearing the trial court discharged petitioner from custody under the first count and remanded him for trial on the second and third counts of the information. This appeal is from the judgment or order of remand.
The subject matter of the controversy appears on its face to be an assignment of gas and oil lease in and to 40 acres of specifically described land in Presidio County, Texas, sold by the appellant, Boyer, to one A. B. Fuller of Orange County, Florida. Negotiations for the sale were opened on May 11, 1943. The transaction became completely consummated sometime in June, 1943, by Boyer delivering the assignment of lease to the purchaser after it had been duly recorded in the public records of Presidio County, Texas, and receiving from Fuller the agreed purchase price.
No representations were made by Boyer during the negotiations between the parties that he or any one else was drilling for gas or oil on the land, or land close by, or expected to or would undertake to drill thereon in the future. No representations were made to Fuller that by buying the lease he would thereby acquire interests in tracts of other purchasers, or in unsold tracts of the assignor, or in any well or production therefrom. It does not appear that the seller, or any one under him, was to retain or exercise any management or [18 So.2d 887] control over the property or to guide it into profit-making [154 Fla. 725] channels. When Fuller purchased the lease he understood clearly that what he was buying was the gas and oil lease in question and whatever property interest in the land the lease carried with it--nothing more. The instrument was not an obligation for the payment of money. No profit-sharing or participation agreement or scheme was involved in the transaction. No undertaking was assumed by the seller to develop the property, explore for gas or oil, or resell the lease for profit.
Prior to 1943 gas and oil leases in out-of-state lands were not expressly made subject to regulation in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Department of Ins., s. 69551
...and logrolling in legislation). The single subject provision has been considered to be mandatory by this Court, Boyer v. Black, 154 Fla. 723, 726, 18 So.2d 886, 887 (1944), and when the body of the act embraces more than one subject, it must be declared unconstitutional. Nolan. In my view t......
-
State v. Lee, s. 52076 and 52190
...title should express only one subject. Colonial Inv. Co. v. Nolan, supra. The constitutional provision is mandatory. Boyer v. Black, 154 Fla. 723, 18 So.2d 886 (1944). Although courts are naturally reluctant to invalidate a statute for defects in the title and will not do so except in clear......
-
State v. Petruzzelli
...criminal penalty. 4 Each provision of the law is fairly and naturally germane to the subject expressed in the title, Boyer v. Black, 154 Fla. 723, 18 So.2d 886 (Fla.1944); Smith v. Chase, 91 Fla. 1044, 109 So. 94 (1926); the several provisions are all necessary to achieve the purpose of the......
-
Kass v. Lewin
...'to plat'. The title is misleading and deceptive as to this section and therefore Section 2 is inoperative. See Boyer v. Black, 1944, 154 Fla. 723, 18 So.2d 886, 153 A.L.R. 869. Section 3, Chapter 25519, supra, as amended, is As above-stated the effect of this section is to require the prep......