In Re De Woody, in Re

• Citation: 94 Fla. 96,113 So. 677
• Parties: In re DE WOODY.
• Decision Date: 05 July 1927
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

113 So. 677

94 Fla. 96

In re DE WOODY.

Florida Supreme Court

July 5, 1927

En Banc.

Motion by Charles F. De Woody, under Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 2545, for admission to the bar, notwithstanding Acts 1925, c. 10175. Motion denied.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Although act's title must express subject, it need not specifically refer to other matters properly connected with and germane to subject; statute's title need not be index to body thereof. While the title of an act is by the Constitution required to briefly express the subject of the enactment, it need not specifically refer to other matters embraced in the body of the act, which are properly connected with and germane to the expressed subject. The title need not be an index to the body of the act.

Statute's title, covering its subject, giving notice reasonably leading to inquiry into body of act, is sufficient, unless it would mislead ordinary mind. If the language of the title of an act, when considered with reference to the legislative intent, as shown by the purpose and object of the act, may by any fair intendment cover the subject of the act, and if the title of the act fairly gives notice of the subject-matter thereof, so as to reasonably lead to an inquiry into the body of the act, that is all that is necessary, if the title is not so worded as to mislead an ordinary mind as to the real purpose and scope of the enactment.

Title of statute relating to admitting attorneys to bar held to express subject-matter sufficiently (Acts 1925, c. 10175; Const. art. 3, § 16). Those provisions of chapter 10175, Acts 1925, relating to the examination and admission to the bar of applicants therefor by the State Board of Law Examiners appointed pursuant to said act, are not amenable to the objection that the title of that act does not sufficiently express such objects within the meaning of article 3, § 16 of the Constitution.

Constitutionality of statute will not be decided at instance of one whose rights are not affected, unless provision assailed, if unconstitutional, would render invalid provision of statute affecting party's rights; person not admitted to bar may not attack constitutionality of statute regulating conduct of attorneys admitted to bar (Acts 1925, c. 10175). The constitutionality of a provision of a statute will not be decided at the instance of a party who is not prejudiced, and whose rights are not affected by such provision, unless the provision assailed is of such a nature that, if unconstitutional, it would render invalid a provision of the statute that does affect the rights of such party.

Constitutional provision, forbidding amendment or revision of law by reference to title only, held not to apply to amendments or repeals of statutes effected by implication; constitutional provision, forbidding amendment or revision of law by reference to title only, applies only to laws assuming in terms to revise, alter, or amend particular act, or section of act (Const. art. 3, § 16). The constitutional provision (article 3, § 16), forbidding the amendment or revision of a law by reference to its title only, and requiring the act as revised, or section as amended, to be re-enacted and published at length, does not apply to amendments or repeals of statutes that are effected by implication, but applies only to laws that assume in terms to revise, alter, or amend some particular prior act or section of an act.

COUNSEL

Charles F. De Woody, in pro. per.

OPINION

STRUM J.

Charles F. De Woody moves for his admission to the bar under section 2545, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 10175, Acts of 1925, which creates the State Board of Law Examiners, and provides, amongst other things, for the method of examination and admission to the bar of applicants.

The movant contends that chapter 10175, supra, is inoperative because it violates article 3, section 16, of the Constitution of Florida in three respects, namely:

(1) In that said act embraces more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith.

(2) In that the subject-matter is not fairly expressed in the title to the act.

(3) In that the provision of article 3, section 16, of the Constitution, that 'no law shall be amended or revised by reference to its title only, but in such case the act, as revised, or section, as amended, shall be reenacted and published at length,' was not observed in the passage of chapter 10175, supra.

The title of chapter 10175, supra, is:

'An act to provide for the appointment of a State Board of Law Examiners, and prescribe their powers and duties, including the authority to prescribe rules of professional conduct and ethics in their practice, and to make investigations as to any immoral or sharp practice or other unprofessional conduct and report the same to the state's attorney of the circuit court for investigation; and provide for the maintenance of said board and the expenses of conducting its business, from fees to be collected for admission certificates, and additional sources when necessary; and to provide penalties for violation of the provisions of this act.'

Under his second ground of objection to the act, the movant contends that:

'The gravamen of the act (chapter 10175, supra) was to change all prior laws relating to attorney's admission in order to divest from the Supreme Court the responsibility and full discretion theretofore, over a long period of years, vested in it, as well as to completely abrogate the rule of comity, governing admissions to the bar of Florida. No word or phrase occurs in the title as passed to warn of this intention or of any change in either method of admission. The subject of admission to practice is not referred to directly or inferentially. Sections 2543 and 2545 (Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920) might be continued in effect to the present without suggestion to the contrary in the title under discussion, or inconsistency therewith.'

The title of the act contains specific notice that the act provides for the appointment of a 'State Board of Law Examiners' and prescribes their 'powers and duties.' The title also refers to the power of said board to promulgate rules of professional conduct in the practice of law, as well as to other related matters. The body of the act, besides providing for the appointment and organization of the board, further provides:

'Sec. 2. Before any person, other than those already entitled to practice under the provisions of the preceding section, shall be authorized to practice law as an attorney, counselor, solicitor, or advocate in this state, he or she shall first obtain a certificate of authority from the State Board of Law Examiners as hereinafter provided.'

The act also prescribes the method by which such certificate of authority may be obtained, which method is materially dissimilar to the method theretofore prescribed by statute. The movant contends that the several provisions last referred to are beyond the scope of the title.

In Butler v. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 So. 150, this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Whitfield, said:

'While the title of an act is by the Constitution required to briefly express the subject of the enactment, it need not state matters properly connected with such subject that are embraced in the body of the law, and the language used in expressing the subject of the enactment is within the legislative discretion. If the language of the title, considered with reference to the legislative intent as shown by the purpose and object of the act, may by any fair intendment cover the subject of the act, the courts will not, because of an asserted defective title, refuse to give effect to any matter contained in the body of the enactment that is germane to or properly connected with the subject of the law, where the title is not so worded as to mislead an ordinary mind as to the real purpose and scope of the particular enactment. A wide latitude must of necessity be accorded the Legislature in its enactments of law, and it must be a plain case of violating the requirements of the organic law as to titles of acts before the courts will nullify statutes or portions thereof as not being within the purpose and scope of the subject as expressed in the title and of 'matter properly connected therewith.' If the title of an act fairly gives notice of the subject of the act, so as to reasonably lead to an inquiry into the body thereof, it is all that is necessary. The title need not be an index to the contents of the act.'

See, also, State v. Vestel, 81 Fla. 625, 88 So. 477.

It seems to us that it should be readily inferred from the title that the 'powers and duties' of a 'State Board of Law Examiners' would doubtless pertain, amongst other things, to the examination of candidates for admission to the bar. The examination of applicants for admission to the bar is certainly germane to the 'powers and duties' of a 'State Board of Law Examiners.' Even though the language used in the title does not expressly mention in terms the matter of admissions to the bar, such language is certainly sufficient to lead the average mind to an inquiry into the body of the act, to ascertain what the 'powers and duties' of the 'State Board of Law Examiners' may be. One thus led to such an inquiry would readily find in the body of ...