Franklin County v. State
Decision Date | 15 February 1888 |
Citation | 24 Fla. 55,3 So. 471 |
Parties | FRANKLIN CO. v. STATE ex rel. PATTON et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Franklin county; DAVID S. WALKER, Judge.
This was a mandamus proceeding on the relation of George A. Patton and others to compel the county commissioners of Franklin county to receive and file for record the returns of an election.The return to the alternative writ was quashed, and judgment rendered granting a peremptory writ.The commissioners bring error.
Syllabus by the Court
The constitutionality of an act cannot be called in question by a party whose rights its enforcement does not affect.
A statute which requires inspectors to canvass the votes of an election and 'make due returns of the same to the county commissioners of the county in which the election was held,' imposes thereby upon such commissioners the duty of receiving and keeping the returns in their official custody, as records of the result of the election.
Neither the constitutionality of such statute, nor the legality of the election held thereunder, can be considered or passed upon by the commissioners officially; nor can the same be raised by them as grounds for not performing such duty, in a mandamus proceeding brought to compel its performance.
A paper is filed when it is delivered to the proper officer, and received by him to be kept in his official custody.The usual file-marks are but one evidence of the filing.
COUNSELJohn S. Beard and H. C. Hicks, for plaintiffs in error.
D. S Walker, Jr., for defendants in error.
The act of June 2, 1887, providing for the enforcement of the local option, or nineteenth article of the constitution, makes it the duty of the inspectors of election, appointed thereunder to canvass the vote cast, and to make due returns of the same to the county commissioners of the county in which an election may be held.
The purpose of the proceedings in this case is to compel the commissioners of Franklin county to receive the returns of an election held in that county under said act, (chapter 3700) on the twenty-third day of last August, and to file the same as public records and documents of the county.Nothing more is asked.
Article 19 of the constitution provides that the board of county commissioners of each county in the state, not oftener than once in every two years, upon the application of one-fourth of the registered voters of any county, shall call and provide for an election in the county in which the application is made, to decide whether the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer shall be prohibited therein, the question to be determined by a majority vote of those voting at the election, which election, it provides, shall be conducted in the manner provided by law for holding general elections.It also provides that elections under it shall be held within 60 days from the time of presenting the application, but that if any such election should thereby take place within 60 days of any state or national election, it shall be held within 60 days after any such state or national election.By its provisions intoxicating liquors, either spirituous, vinous, or malt cannot be sold in any election district in which a majority vote was cast against the same at the said election; and 'the legislature shalll provide necessary laws to carry out and enforce the provisions' of the article.
The alternative writ was demurred to on two grounds, viz.--First, that the statute under which the election was held is repugnant to the provisions of the above article of the constitution; and, second, the act does not require the county commissioners to file the returns of such an election.
The demurrer having been overruled, the commissioners made a 'return' to the writ, setting up that the election was not held in accordance with the provisions of the general election law, approved June 7, 1887, which is chapter 3704, and is entitled 'An act to provide for the registration of all legally qualified voters in the several counties of the state, and to provide for a general election, and for the returns of elections,' in this:
First.That section 8 provides that immediately upon the passage of this law, and every two years thereafter, the governor shall appoint, subject to the removal by him, in each county one competent and discreet person, who shall be a qualified elector, to be known as the supervisor of registration of electors, and that he shall be to appoint a registration officer for each election district, whose duty it shall be to attend to the registration of electors in each district as in such act provided; whereas, the clerk of the circuit court of Franklin county appointed the deputy registration officer in each voting precinct in the county to register voters at the stated election.
Second.That section 29 of the general election law requires inspectors of elections to make returns to the supervisor of registration and county judge, whereas, the inspectors of the election in question made returns to the county commissioners.
The only effect of this paper is to raise again, and in an improper manner, the question of the constitutionality of the former statute, and the legality of the election thereunder, covered by the demurrer.
The circuit court, on motion of the relators, quashed this return, and gave judgment that the peremptory writ issue.
Not only is it true that a court will not, as a general rule, pass upon a constitutional question, and decide a statute to be invalid, unless a decision upon that very point becomes necessary, but it is also a rule that a court will not listen to an objection made to the constitutionality of a statute by a party whose rights it does not affect, and who has, therefore, no interest in defeating it.Cooley, Const. Lim. (5th Ed.) 197.'A party who seeks to have an act of the legislature declared unconstitutional, must' says the supreme court of Alabama, in Jones v. Black,48 Ala. 540, The complainants sued as residents and electors of the county, without showing any injury to themselves in person, property, or rights, and it was held that the act would not be declared unconstitutional on their application to enjoin the holding of an election on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional.See, also, Smith v. McCarthy,56 Pa. St. 359.
The validity of an act, says the supreme court of Massachusetts can be called in question only by those having a direct interest in the rights supposed to be injuriously affected by its provisions, and no one can interpose to ask for the interference of this court to declare the act void or to prevent its full operation except so far as may be necessary to support and protect their own property or rights from unauthorized injury or invasion.Turnpike Corp. v. County of Norfolk, 6 Allen, 360.In this casea statute was passed making the turnpike a common highway, and providing for the appointment of commissioners to award the amount to be paid to the turnpike corporation as damages, and in what proporations the same should be paid by the counties in which the turnpike lay,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State Ex Rel. Harrell v. Cone
... 177 So. 854 130 Fla. 158 STATE ex rel. HARRELL et al v. CONE, Governor, et al, (Washington County Case). Florida Supreme Court October 6, 1937 ... On ... Rehearing Jan. 5, 1938 ... En ... Original ... mandamus ... Line Railway Co. v. State Board of Equalizers, 84 Fla ... 592, 94 So. 681, 683, 30 A.L.R. 362; County Commissioners ... of Franklin County v. State ex rel. Patton, 24 Fla. 55, ... 3 So. 471, 12 Am.St.Rep. 183; Adams v. American ... Agricultural Chemical Co., 78 Fla. 362, 82 ... ...
-
Sullivan v. Sapp
...State v. Parker, 57 Fla. 170, 49 So. 124, 125 (1909); Ex parte Bailey, 39 Fla. 734, 23 So. 552, 555 (1897); Franklin County v. State ex rel. Patton, 24 Fla. 55, 3 So. 471, 472 (1888). 7. See, e.g., M.Z. v. State, 747 So.2d 978, 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); State v. Burdette, 826 So.2d 1092, 109......
-
State Ex Rel. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalizers
... ... constitutionality ... This ... rule was followed by this court in the case of County ... Commissioners of Franklin County v. State ex rel ... Patton, 24 Fla. 55, 3 So. 471, 12 Am. St. Rep. 183, ... where it was said: ... ...
-
State ex rel. Miller v. Leech
... 157 N.W. 492 33 N.D. 513 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. ANDREW MILLER As Attorney General v. ADDISON LEECH as County Auditor of Cass County Supreme Court of North Dakota March 29, 1916 ... Appeal ... from the District Court of Cass County, ... Co. v. Heard, ... 47 La.Ann. 1679, 47 L.R.A. 512, 18 So. 746; Thoreson v ... State Examiners, 19 Utah 18, 57 P. 175; Franklin ... County v. State, 24 Fla. 55, 12 Am. St. Rep. 183, 3 So ... 471; Com. v. James, 135 Pa. 480, 19 A. 950; ... Bassett v. Barbin, 11 La.Ann ... ...