Cates v. Heffernan

Decision Date09 May 1944
Citation154 Fla. 422,18 So.2d 11
PartiesCATES et al. v. HEFFERNAN.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Chappell & Brown and Sam Silver, all of Miami, for petitioners.

L. J Cushman, of Miami, for respondents.

TERRELL, Justice.

The legislature enacted Chapter 20361, Acts of 1941, F.S.A. § 33.11, limiting the time for taking appeals from civil courts of record to the Circuit Court, in circuits having more than four circuit judges, to one calendar month after the entry of the judgment or the order granting or denying the motion for new trial.

This is an appeal by certiorari to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County dismissing an appeal from the Civil Court of Record because it was not brought within the time required by the statute. The sole question urged for consideration is the constitutional validity of Chapter 20361, Acts of 1941.

Appellant contends that Chapter 20361 is violative of Section 20, Article Three of the Constitution in that it is a local act and attempts to regulate appeals from civil courts record to the circuit courts and affects only the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. Ex parte Porter, 141 Fla. 711, 193 So. 750; State ex rel. Blalock et al. v. Lee, 146 Fla. 385, 1 So.2d 193; and State ex rel. Baldwin v. Coleman, 148 Fla. 155, 3 So.2d 802, are relied on to support this contention. These cases have been examined but for reasons of difference in factual basis, they do not rule the case at bar.

This court is committed to the doctrine that the organic requirement of uniform operation throughout the state does not mean universal operation over the state. Reasonable classification as to subject matter is permitted and will be approved. It is admitted that the act in question applies only to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. We are not concerned with its potential applicability to all circuits in the state but only those with more than four circuit judges in which civil courts of record are located. There are less than half a dozen circuits with civil courts of record. If potentially applicable to these, the requirement as to classification is satisfied. We think State ex rel. Richardson v Ferrell, 130 Fla. 26, 177 So. 181; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Hunter, 139 Fla. 803, 191 So. 38; Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Rotter, 139 Fla. 854, 191 So 78, conclude the matter. Collier v. Cassady, 63 Fla. 390, 57 So. 617; State ex rel. Buford v. Daniel, 87 Fla. 270, 99 So. 804, and State ex rel. Buford v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 206, 93 So. 667, are also instructive.

The fact that Chapter 20361 creates a new and different time for taking appeals from civil court of record in the Eleventh Circuit to the Circuit Court from that prevailing in another circuit is not material as such variations are frequent and have been upheld. Sections 61.04, 75.08, 83.38, 83.27, 61.01, 732.16, 924.09, 924.10, 932.52, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., and others are typical. The prescriptive time for taking appeals is a matter for legislative discretion and there is no rule of uniformity regulating its exercise. It is within the power of the legislature to prescribe the time for taking appeals and as the statutes just cited show it has exercised that power to suit the circumstances with which it was confronted.

Certiorari denied.

BROWN, J., concurs specially.

CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

BUFORD, C. J., and THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.

BROWN, Justice (concurring specially).

If the validity of the provisions contained in chapter 20361, Acts of 1941 F.S.A. § 33.11, depended entirely upon that particular Act, some question of the validity of that act might be raised upon the following grounds:

1. Section 20 of Article III of the Constitution provides that the legislature shall not pass special or local laws in any of certain enumerated cases, one of which is 'regulating the practice of courts of justice, except municipal courts.' However, this section, when it comes to establishing courts, and providing for their jurisdiction and appellate review of their judgments, must be construed in connection with that clause of Section 1 of Article V of our Constitution which vests the judicial power of the State in certain named courts, 'and such other Courts or Commissions as the Legislature may from time to time ordain and establish.' We will discuss this point later.

2. Is the title defective or misleading? The title of said Chapter 20361 reads as follows: 'An Act relating to appeals by writs of error or as otherwise provided by law to the Circuit Court in circuits having more than four circuit judges, and limiting the time for such appeal; the duties of and fees allowed to the clerk of the trial court, or judge if there be no clerk, and the Circuit Court clerk; amending Section eleven (11) of Chapter 11357, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1925, and repealing Chapter 15666, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931.' The words in the title limiting the operation of the act to appeals 'to the Circuit Court in circuits having more than four circuit judges' nowhere appears in the body of the act, nor in section 11 of Chapter 11357, Acts of 1925, Ex.Sess., which it amends; nor in Chapter 15666, Acts of 1931, Ex.Sess., which it attempts to repeal.

Chapter 11357 adopted in 1925, F.S.A. § 33.01 et seq., was an act creating civil courts of record in all counties having a population of more than 100,000 inhabitants according to the last State census and in which no civil court of record had yet been established. It gave such courts jurisdiction in all cases at law involving not more than $5,000. The effect of the language of the act was to create at that time, A. D. 1925, a court of that kind in Dade County, but to leave undisturbed the civil court of record of Duval County. See State v. Barrs, 105 Fla. 27, 140 So. 908. Chapter 11357 was incorporated in the Comp.Gen.Laws of 1927, as sections 5156-5168. Chapter 8521, Acts of 1921, had already created a somewhat different kind of Civil Court of Record in counties having more than 100,000 population according to the last Federal census, and it is under this Act this the existing civil court of record of Duval County came into being. See State v. Barrs, supra.

Section 11 of Chapter 11357 provided that: 'The circuit courts shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases decided by such civil courts of record in the same manner and with the same limitations as in writs of error from the circuit [courts] to the Supreme Court.' This section was attempted to be amended by Chapter 20361, Acts of 1941, so as to require appeals to be taken within 'one calendar month' from the entry of the judgment appealed from or from order granting or denying motion for new trial.

Chapter 15666, Acts of 1931, which was attempted to be repealed by said Chapter 20361, was an act providing for and regulating writs of error from the circuit courts to those civil courts of record in this State organized and existing under Chapter 11357 of the Laws of 1925, Ex.Sess., and Section 3 of said Chapter 15666 provided that writs of error to the Circuit Court should be sued out within thirty days from the entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed, unless for good cause shown the time was extended by one of the Circuit Judges.

So the title of Chapter 20361, Acts of 1941, relates to appeals to the Circuit Court in circuits having more than four Circuit Judges, whereas the body of the Act, when construed in connection with Chapter 11357, which it in part amends, would apparently make it applicable to appeals from judgments of the civil courts of record to the Circuit Court where such civil court of record is in existence under the 1925 Act, Chapter 11357, in counties having a population of 100,000 or more according to the last State census. The body of the Act does not mention appeals to 'the circuit court in circuits having more than four circuit judges,' but its provisions can apply only to the civil court of record of Dade County, which is the only civil court of record existing in a judicial circuit having more than four Circuit Judges--the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Thus the title of the Act is not necessarily misleading when considered in connection with the body of the act and the legislative background of its provisions.

Recurring now to the first question as to whether Chapter 20361 is violative of Section 20 of Article III, which prohibits inter alia the passage of special or local laws 'regulating the practice of courts of justice, except municipal courts,' I think the answer to this question must be that it does not.

This act deals primarily with the appellate jurisdiction of Circuit Courts having more than four Circuit Judges with reference to the orders or judgments of any civil court of record established in any county within such circuit, and the manner or method by which, and the time within which, such jurisdiction may be invoked. We are not here dealing with a mere matter of 'practice.' We are dealing with a matter of appellate jurisdiction and the time within which it may be invoked. Section 1 of Article V vests the judicial power of the State in certain named courts and 'such other Courts or Commissions as the Legislature may from time to time ordain and establish.' If the legislature is vested with power to establish a court, by necessary implication it can ordain the limits of its jurisdiction and the time and method of invoking such jurisdiction, and may provide for the exercise thereof under any appropriate rules or regulations that are incidental to the establishment and proper functioning of such court, so long as no command of the Constitution is disobeyed.

All this is inherent in the constitutional power to ordain and establish courts other than those established by the Constitution itself, and a court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Miller v. Davis, 33268
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1965
    ...record and to provide the procedure for such review. Acts 1931, Ex.Sess., c. 15666, § 3, 8; Const. art. 5, § 1.' See also Cates v. Heffernan, 154 Fla. 422, 18 So.2d 11. In Cormack v. Coleman, 120 Fla. 1, 161 So. 844, a statute providing for the assignment of a circuit judge to hold a regula......
  • Cesary v. Second Nat. Bank of North Miami
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1979
    ...operation, Lykes Bros. v. Bigby, 155 Fla. 580, (21 So.2d 37,) but rather reasonable classification as to subject matter. Cates v. Heffernan, (154 Fla. 422,) 18 So.2d 11. This Court is not able on the basis of its judicial knowledge to determine that the grounds justifying the particular cla......
  • Congregation Temple De Hirsch of Seattle, Wash. v. Aronson
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1961
    ...Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 832.3 In re Wartman's Estate, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 838.4 Cates v. Heffernan, 1944, 154 Fla. 422, 18 So.2d 11; Wiesen v. Schatzberg, 1946, 157 Fla. 375, 26 So.2d 62; Fonell v. Williams, 1946, 157 Fla. 673, 26 So.2d 800; Donin v. Gos......
  • Chapoteau v. Chapoteau
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 1995
    ...v. Schreiber, 561 So.2d 1236, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (citations omitted), review denied, 581 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1991); Cates v. Heffernan, 154 Fla. 422, 18 So.2d 11 (1944); Steckel v. Blafas, 549 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Williams v. Starnes, 522 So.2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA We next address ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT