Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Silverman
Decision Date | 14 October 1920 |
Citation | 86 So. 508,80 Fla. 541 |
Parties | PRAIRIE PEBBLE PHOSPHATE CO. v. SILVERMAN. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Polk County; John S. Edwards, Judge.
Action by Louis Silverman, trading as S. Rosin & Co. against the Prairie Pebble Phosphate Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed on condition of remittitur.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Olliphant & Olliphant and Wilson & Swearingen, all of Bartow, for plaintiff in error.
Wilson & Boswell, of Bartow, and John W. Burton, of Arcadia, for defendant in error.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment obtained upon orders for the payment in merchandise of stated amounts due for labor, the action being brought pursuant to chapter 6914 Acts of 1915. The act is as follows:
One of the orders, which is typical, is as follows:
'Merchandise Order.
$3.00.
'Mulberry, Fla., 8/14, 1917.
'H. A. Ford, deliver to Dewey Roberts three dollars in merchandise and charge to our account.
'Prairie Pebble Phosphate Company,
'By C. E. Fitts, Timekeeper.'
Indorsed:
'This order was given to me in payment for labor.
[Signed] Dewey Roberts.'
Both the constitutionality and the applicability of the statute are contested, but no serious difficulty is found in applying the statute to the facts of this case, nor in determining the validity of the main features of the statute against the grounds asserted.
While statutes and all other governmental actions are subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the organic right of 'all men' to acquire, possess, and protect property is not absolute and unlimited. As the Constitution does not define such rights, they may be defined by statute. All property rights are subject to governmental regulation 'for the protection, security and benefit of the citizens' in order to secure the 'blessings' of 'constitutional liberty,' as expressed in the Contitution. Therefore organic property rights relate to those that are recognized by the law, and such rights are subject to sovereign governmental regulation within the limitations prescribed by definite provisions of the Constitution. Likewise all contracts are subject to valid governmental regulations, and the organic law forbids a violation of the obligation of contracts that are lawful when made and that are not subject to the fair exercise of sovereign governmental power to conserve the general welfare. Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 26 S.Ct. 127, 50 L.Ed. 274; Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 28 S.Ct. 529, 52 L.Ed. 828, 14 Ann. Cas. 560; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467, 31 S.Ct. 265, 55 L.Ed. 297, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 671; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, text 567, 31 S.Ct. 259, 55 L.Ed. 328; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Goldsboro, North Carolina, 232 U.S. 548, text 558, 34 S.Ct. 364, 58 L.Ed. 721; Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Corporation, 248 U.S. 372, 39 S.Ct. 117, 63 L.Ed. 309; Ingham v. Brooks (Conn.) 111 A. 209. The statute is not so arbitrary and oppressive as to violate organic property rights.
The statute here involved was enacted prior to the date of the orders, and the orders were issued subject to the valid provisions of all applicable statutes. State ex rel. Ellis v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 56 Fla. 858, 47 So. 358, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 183; McCaskill v. Union Naval Stores Co., 59 Fla. 571, 52 So. 961.
But the provision for compulsory attorney fees is clearly not covered by the title of the act as required by organic law. Article 3, § 16, Const.; In re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 14 Fla. 285; Carr v. Thomas, 18 Fla. 736; Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Geiger, 21 Fla. 669, 58 Am. Rep. 697; State ex rel. Gonzalez v. Palmes, 23 Fla. 620, 3 So. 171; State ex rel....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Watkins
... ... 1918A, 138; Lainhart ... v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Prairie Pebble ... Phos. Co. v. Silverman, 80 Fla. 541, 86 So. 508. See, ... 245, 43 ... S.Ct. 83, 67 L.Ed. 237; Dutton Phosphate Co. v ... Priest, 67 Fla. 370, 65 So. 282; ... [102 So. 353] ... ...
-
City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son
... ... Atlantic Lumber Co., 51 Fla. 628, 41 ... So. 72; Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Silverman, ... 80 Fla. 541, 86 So. 508; State ... ...
-
Westlake v. Merritt
... ... Philips, 70 Fla. 340, 70 ... So. 367, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 138; Prairie Pebble Phos. Co ... v. Silverman, 80 Fla. 541, 86 So. 508, and other ... ...
-
Colonial Inv. Co. v. Nolan
... ... St. Rep. 191; Smith v. Chase, 91 Fla. 1044, 109 So ... 94; Prairie Pebble Phos. Co. v. Silverman, 80 Fla ... 541, 86 So. 508; Albritton ... See Prairie ... Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Silverman, 80 Fla. 541, 86 So ... 508; Carr v. Thomas, 18 Fla ... ...