Carolina-florida Planting Co. v. Maige

• Decision Date: 03 December 1912
• Citation: 64 Fla. 234,60 So. 346
• Parties: CAROLINA-FLORIDA PLANTING CO. v. MAIGE et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

60 So. 346

64 Fla. 234

CAROLINA-FLORIDA PLANTING CO. v. MAIGE et al.

Florida Supreme Court

December 3, 1912

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1913.

Error to Circuit Court, Leon County; John W. Malone, Judge.

Action by J. N. Maige and T. J. Hawes against the Carolina-Florida Planting Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

When a case is not within the operation of a statute, the constitutionality of the statute, even if questioned, may not be involved in the proper disposition of the case.

If a cause can be fully disposed of without adjudicating constitutional questions raised therein, the courts will generally ignore such questions and dispose of the case on other grounds.

When a party claims rights under a penal statute, he should show facts bringing him within the terms and purpose of the statute.

COUNSEL Fred T. Myers, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.

J. A Edmondson and W. C. Hodges, both of Tallahassee, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD C.J.

Chapter 3945, Acts of 1889, provides that it 'shall be unlawful for any live stock to run at large in' certain portions of Leon county, and that 'any person may take up and impound any live stock so running at large.' Provision is also made therein for collecting certain sums from the owner of the stock, and for a sale of the stock where payment is not made.

The plaintiff in error found 14 head of cattle belonging to the defendants in error in its hayfield, and after impounding them demanded compensation for the impounding. This was refused, and in replevin the owners recovered the cattle; the trial judge holding the statute to be unconstitutional.

When a case is not within the operation of a statute, the constitutionality of the statute, even if questioned, may not be involved in the proper disposition of the case. If a cause can be fully disposed of without adjudicating constitutional questions raised therein, the courts will generally ignore such questions and dispose of the case on other grounds. Pensacola Electric Co. v. Soderlind, 60 Fla. 164, 53 So. 722, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1251; Ex parte Bailey, 39 Fla. 734 23 So. 552; State v. Parker, 57 Fla. 170, 49 So 124.

If the cattle were not 'running at large' within the meaning of the statute, there was no authority to impound them even though the owner of the property trespassed upon may have had his appropriate remedy in due course of law.

The statute was manifestly intended to protect persons and property against depredation and danger arising from stock negligently or designedly permitted to run at large without any effort being made to keep them within proper inclosures, or to recapture them should they escape without the knowledge of...