Jannett v. Windham

• Decision Date: 14 March 1933
• Citation: 109 Fla. 129,147 So. 296
• Parties: JANNETT et al. v. WINDHAM, Sheriff. [*]
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

147 So. 296

109 Fla. 129

JANNETT et al. v. WINDHAM, Sheriff. ^[*]

Florida Supreme Court

March 14, 1933

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1933.

En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceeding by J. M. Jannett and another, against G. A Windham, Sheriff of Dade County. To review an adverse order the petitioners bring error.

Affirmed.

BUFORD J., dissenting.

COUNSEL John M. Murrell, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners below, charged with operating a loan business without procuring a license under the statute, were remanded on habeas corpus and took writ of error.

The plaintiffs in error operate under chapter 10177, Acts of 1925, section 3999 et seq., Compiled General Laws, a statute which exempts those in their class who make small short loans, from the usury laws upon obtaining a stated license; and, having the benefit of the statute, they cannot challenge the validity of the provision requiring the license to be obtained. Hurley v. Commission of Fisheries, of Virginia, 257 U.S. 223, text 225, 42 S.Ct. 83, 66 L.Ed. 206.

If the plaintiffs in error have a right to challenge the validity of the license provision of the statute under which they operate to protect them from the usury laws, the statutory provision requiring a license is not invalid, since the provisions of the statute are based on a just and reasonable classification with reference to the subject regulated, and the exceptions in the statute do not render the act invalid. If the act is not a general law, the violation of the regulations of a special or local law may be made a misdemeanor, and the punishment therefor may be imposed under the general law, section 7104(5005), Compiled General Laws, providing for the punishment in cases where the punishment prescribed in a local law in invalid under section 20, article 3, Constitution, or is otherwise invalid. Stinson v. State, 63 Fla. 42, 58 So. 722. See Beasley v. Cahoon (Fla.) 147 So. 208, decided at this term.

Affirmed.

DAVIS, C.J., and WHITFIELD, TERRELL, and BROWN, JJ., and JOHNSON, Circuit Judge, concur.

BUFORD, J., dissents.

DISSENTING

BUFORD, Justice (dissenting).

I think chapter 10177, Acts of 1925, sections 3999-4017, 7880, Comp. Gen. Laws, is invalid because there is no reasonable basis for the classification therein whereby its application is confined to counties having a population of forty thousand or more.

If we look to the preamble of the act, we find it stated that:

'It is desired to suppress the 'loan shark evil' by authorizing and regulating the conduct of the business of making small loans upon fair and lawful terms, thereby inducing reputable money lenders to obtain state licenses.'

If the loan shark evil exists in the state, there can be no reasonable ground for legislative act suppressing that evil in some counties and not in others. It is practically true that all evil practices occur more often in larger populated districts than they occur in smaller populated districts, but there could be no reason to assume that the larger population requires protection from the existence of the evil in larger proportions than do the smaller populated areas require protection from the evil in smaller proportion. If the evil exists throughout the state, then the remedy to control the same should extend throughout the state.

The act appears to me to be in conflict with section 1 of the Declaration of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, because it denies to some the privilege that...