Harry E. Prettyman, Inc., v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Branham
Decision Date | 04 August 1926 |
Citation | 109 So. 442,92 Fla. 515 |
Parties | HARRY E. PRETTYMAN, Inc. v. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION ex rel. BRANHAM. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In a proceeding by the Florida Real Estate Commission, on the relation of Charles T. Branham, against Harry E. Prettyman Inc., the latter's license as real estate broker was revoked by the county judge, and it petitions for cortiorari. On motion to quash the writ.
Motion granted.
Syllabus by the Court
The writ of certiorari may be issued to final judicial or quasi judicial orders that are alleged to be invalid, where no other adequate remedy is afforded by appellate procedure or otherwise.
The issuance of an occupational license does not create any contract right.
Revocation of occupational license is not essentially judicial function but may be exercised by duly authorized administrative or executive officers. The revocation of an occupational license is not essentially a judicial function. Such a function may be exercised by administrative or executive officers, when duly authorized.
'Our state Constitution is a limitation upon power, and unless legislation duly passed be clearly contrary to some express or implied prohibition contained therein, the courts have no authority to pronounce it invalid.
While constitutional jurisdiction cannot be restricted or taken away, it can be enlarged by the Legislature in all cases where such enlargement does not result in a diminution of the constitutional jurisdiction of some other court, or where such enlargement is not forbidden by the Constitution.
Statute giving county judges power to revoke real estate broker's registration certificate and license held valid (Laws Ex Sess. 1925, c. 11336, §§ 9, 12; Const. art. 5, § 17). As the quasi judicial power to revoke a real estate broker's registration certificate and license, conferred upon the county judges by section 9 of chapter 11336, Laws of Florida is not forbidden by the Constitution and does not affect the constitutional jurisdiction of any other court, and as such quasi judicial function comports with powers expressly conferred upon county judges by section 17, art. 5 of the Constitution, such section 9, c. 11336, does not violate the last-named section of the Constitution, but is a reasonable exercise of legislative power in conferring quasi judicial power upon county judges in the enforcement of salutary police regulations affecting the public welfare.
Edgar W. Waybright, of Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Chas. O. Andrews, of Orlando, for respondent.
A petition was presented to this court alleging that:
A writ of certiorari was issued from this court.
The respondent moved to quash the said writ of certiorari heretofore issued in this cause upon the following grounds, to wit:
'(1) That if, as petitioner alleges, section 9 of the Real Estate Act confers quasi judicial power it could not be judicial power in equity or judicial power in civil action, but would necessarily be quasi criminal power.
'(2) That the county judges are specifically authorized to exercise such quasi criminal jurisdiction by section 17 of article 5, providing that 'the county judge shall have original jurisdiction * * * of such criminal cases as the Legislature may prescribe.'
'(3) That the Legislature has specifically 'prescribed' in said section 9 of the Real Estate Act that the county judge shall have this jurisdiction.
'(4) That the power exercised by the county judge, under said section 9 is quasi criminal, in that it provides a penalty, namely, the revocation of the certificate of registration, and the petitioner would have an absolute right of review by writ of error under section 11 of article 5 of the Constitution, which provides that the circuit court 'shall have final appellate jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases arising * * * before the county judge.'
'(5) That if the power conferred by said section 9 is not quasi criminal it would necessarily be an administrative power specifically conferred by the Legislature.
'(6) That if the power conferred by said section 9 is administrative it could be exercised by any individual regardless of the position he holds under prior decisions of this court.
'(7) That the authority conferred by said section 9 being a police power to effectuate a public policy, it rests within the discretion of the Legislature to determine who shall exercise that power unless prohibited by some specific provision of the Constitution.
'(8) That the powers and duties imposed on the county judge by the act in question might be exercised by any person designated by the Legislature and may therefore be exercised by the county judge, not being otherwise prohibited by the Constitution.
'(9) That the jurisdiction of the county judge to revoke licenses is implied by that portion of section 17 of article 5 of the Constitution where the county judge is directed 'to issue all licenses required to be issued in the county.”
Section 17, art. 5, of the state Constitution, provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
South Atlantic S.S. Co. of Delaware v. Tutson
... ... S. CO. OF DELAWARE v. TUTSON et al. Florida Supreme Court July 21, 1939 ... reversing an order of the Industrial Commission denying ... claimant an award, the South ... involving the titles of boundaries of real estate, and of ... all criminal cases not ... 969, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 639; State ex rel. Young ... v. Duval County, 76 Fla. 180, 79 So ... 954, 128 So. 402; Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. R ... R. Comm., 100 Fla. 538, 129 So. 876; ... 282, 169 So. 679; ... Prettyman, Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Comm., 92 ... Fla ... ...
-
State Ex Rel. Richardson v. Ferrell
... ... RICHARDSON v. FERRELL, Sheriff. Florida Supreme Court, Division B. November 6, 1937 ... Catts, 73 Fla. 735, ... 75 So. 47; Prettyman v. Florida Real Estate ... Commission, 92 Fla ... ...
-
Apportionment Law Senate Joint Resolution No. 1305, 1972 Regular Session, In re
...prohibition contained in the Constitution, the courts have no authority to pronounce it invalid. Harry E. Prettyman, Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442 (1926); State ex rel. Jones v. Wiseheart, 245 So.2d 849 (Fla. Mr. Justice Whitfield in City of Jacksonville v......
-
Board of Public Instruction v. Gillespie
...of Public Instruction, 101 Fla. 1362, 133 So. 341; State ex rel. Moodie v. Bryan, 50 Fla. 293, 39 So. 929; Harry E. Prettyman v. Florida Real Estate Comm., 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442; Jordan v. Duval County, 68 Fla. 48, 66 So. The acts in question here have made express provision that a tax l......