Pasternack v. Bennett

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtBUFORD, Justice.
Citation190 So. 56,138 Fla. 663
Decision Date23 June 1939
PartiesPASTERNACK v. BENNETT et al.

190 So. 56

138 Fla. 663

PASTERNACK
v.
BENNETT et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

June 23, 1939


Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; George W. Tedder, Judge.

Suit for injunction by John Pasternack against E. R. Bennett and others. To review an order denying a temporary injunction, the plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

COUNSEL [138 Fla. 665] Bart A. Riley, of Miami, and Wm. C. Mather, of Hollywood, for plaintiff in error.

George Couper Gibbs, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Ellis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

OPINION

BUFORD, Justice.

The appeal brings for review order of the Circuit Court of Broward County, as follows:

'This cause came on this day to be heard before me upon bill for temporary injunction and the plaintiff and defendants were represented by their respective counsel and the Court having heard the argument of counsel, and counsel asserting that the only question involved at this stage of the proceedings is the question of the Constitutionality [190 So. 57] of Chapter 18143, Acts of 1937, both as to the insufficiency of the title of said Act and as to Section 6 and that the Act is invalid because it makes unlawful the mere possession of the machines described in the bill,
'It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the application for temporary injunction be and the same is hereby denied.
'It is further considered by the Court and agreed to by counsel that no other question except the Constitutionality of said Chapter 18143 will be raised in the Supreme Court.
'It is thereupon ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff be allowed Ten (10) days within which to apply to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida for a supersedeas.
'Done and ordered at Ft. Lauderdale the 7th day of April, 1939.
'George W. Tedder
'Judge.'

[138 Fla. 666] The Order was made in a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the forfeiture of certain slot machines and money and other things of value therein under authority of Section 6 of Chapter 18143, Acts of 1937.

The sole question presented to us is,

Whether or not the provisions of Section 6, supra, which reads as follows: 'Section 6. The right of property in and to any machine, apparatus or device as defined in Section 2 of this Act and to all money and other things of value therein, is hereby declared not to exist in any person, association of persons or corporations, and the same shall be forfeited and such money or other things of value shall be forfeited to the County in which the seizure was made and shall be delivered forthwith to the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall by him be placed in the fine and forfeiture fund of said County', are within the purview of the title of the Act as required by Section 16 of Article III of our Constitution.

The title of the Act is as follows: 'An Act Making It Unlawful to Manufacture, Own, Store, Keep, Possess, Sell, Rent, Lease, Let, Lend, Give Away, Use or Operate Slot Machines or Similar Devices Operated By Coin or Otherwise; Defining Such Devices; Providing For Their Seizure and Destruction and Providing For the Forfeiture of Money and Other Things of Value Therein; Providing When Possession and Operation Shall Be a Nuisance; Providing Liens on Buildings and Property in or Upon which Said Devices Shall Be Possessed, Maintained or Operated; Providing For Injunctions Restraining Operation, Removal or Possession of Same and Prescribing the Penalties For the Violation of the Provisions of This Act.'

Section 16 of Article III of our Constitution is as follows: 'Section 16. Each law enacted in the Legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected [138 Fla. 667] therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title; and 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 re-enacted and published at length.'

The several provisions of the legislative Act here under consideration have heretofore been considered by this Court and the Act held valid and effective as against the challenges presented in those cases. See ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Hoefling v. City of Miami, Case No. 11–22358–CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • May 6, 2014
    ...v. City of Ocala, 142 Fla. 612, 195 So. 406 (1940) ; Lott v. City of Orlando, 142 Fla. 338, 196 So. 313 (1939) ; Pasternack v. Bennett, 138 Fla. 663, 190 So. 56 (1939) ; 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 6 ; 18 Am.Jur. Eminent Domain § 11 ) (overruled in part on other grounds in Baycol, Inc. v. Do......
  • Hoefling v. City of Miami, Case No. 11–22358–CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • May 6, 2014
    ...v. City of Ocala, 142 Fla. 612, 195 So. 406 (1940); Lott v. City of Orlando, 142 Fla. 338, 196 So. 313 (1939); Pasternack v. Bennett, 138 Fla. 663, 190 So. 56 (1939); 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 6; 18 Am.Jur. Eminent Domain § 11) (overruled in part on other grounds in Baycol, Inc. v. Downtow......
  • Gretna Racing, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, No. 1D14–3484.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 2, 2015
    ...and, third, a consideration."). And slot machines were again relegated to nothing more than a societal menace. Pasternack v. Bennett, 138 Fla. 663, 190 So. 56, 57 (1939) ("[I]t is definitely settled in this jurisdiction that those devices commonly known as slot machines are gambli......
  • Johnson v. the City of Prichard, Civil Action No. 08–0572–CG–M.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • February 11, 2011
    ...is taken away from an innocent owner.” Empire State Ins. Co. v. Chafetz, 278 F.2d 41, 42 (5th Cir.1960) (quoting Pasternack v. Bennett, 138 Fla. 663, 671, 190 So. 56 (Fla.1939)). In other words, it is settled that in the exercise of the police power a State “may take, damage, or destroy pri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Hoefling v. City of Miami, Case No. 11–22358–CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • May 6, 2014
    ...v. City of Ocala, 142 Fla. 612, 195 So. 406 (1940) ; Lott v. City of Orlando, 142 Fla. 338, 196 So. 313 (1939) ; Pasternack v. Bennett, 138 Fla. 663, 190 So. 56 (1939) ; 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 6 ; 18 Am.Jur. Eminent Domain § 11 ) (overruled in part on other grounds in Baycol, Inc. v. Do......
  • Hoefling v. City of Miami, Case No. 11–22358–CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • May 6, 2014
    ...v. City of Ocala, 142 Fla. 612, 195 So. 406 (1940); Lott v. City of Orlando, 142 Fla. 338, 196 So. 313 (1939); Pasternack v. Bennett, 138 Fla. 663, 190 So. 56 (1939); 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 6; 18 Am.Jur. Eminent Domain § 11) (overruled in part on other grounds in Baycol, Inc. v. Downtow......
  • Gretna Racing, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, No. 1D14–3484.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 2, 2015
    ...and, third, a consideration."). And slot machines were again relegated to nothing more than a societal menace. Pasternack v. Bennett, 138 Fla. 663, 190 So. 56, 57 (1939) ("[I]t is definitely settled in this jurisdiction that those devices commonly known as slot machines are gambli......
  • Johnson v. the City of Prichard, Civil Action No. 08–0572–CG–M.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • February 11, 2011
    ...is taken away from an innocent owner.” Empire State Ins. Co. v. Chafetz, 278 F.2d 41, 42 (5th Cir.1960) (quoting Pasternack v. Bennett, 138 Fla. 663, 671, 190 So. 56 (Fla.1939)). In other words, it is settled that in the exercise of the police power a State “may take, damage, or destroy pri......
  • 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