Simmons v. Hanton

• Citation: 65 So.2d 42
• Parties: SIMMONS et al. v. HANTON et al.
• Decision Date: 08 May 1953
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

Page 42

65 So.2d 42

SIMMONS et al. v. HANTON et al.

Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.

May 8, 1953.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1953.

Robert C. Lane, Miami, for appellants.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and John C. Reed, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

SEBRING, Justice.

The Florida State Racing Commission promulgated Rule 460-A which provided:

'Every person holding a permit to conduct pari-mutuel wagering in this State and every person who is a member of an association holding such a permit and every person who is an officer or director of a corporation which holds such a permit, and every employee of the holder of any such permit in any capacity connected to any extent with the pari-mutuel wagering business in this State, and all trainers, jockeys, apprentices, grooms, exercise boys, managers, agents, jai-alai players, bell boys, blacksmiths, veterinarians, and like persons who actively participate in the racing or jai-alai activities of any such permit holders, shall furnish the State Racing Commission, for its files, held fingerprints and photograph, which fingerprints and photograph shall be taken at such times and places and in such manner as the State Racing Commission may from time to time direct and prescribe.' (Emphasis supplied.)

The appellants, who are horse trainers employed by owners of racehorses that race on Florida tracks, have questioned, by their bill for injunction, the lawful right of the Commission to promulgate the quoted rule and to require them to come under its terms as a condition precedent to the issuance of an occupational license by the Commission under section 550.10, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., to act as horse trainers at and around the horse race tracks in Florida.

Section 550.02(4), Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., provides that the State Racing Commission shall make rules and regulations 'for the control, supervision and direction of all applicants, permittees and licensees, and for the holding, conducting and operating of all race tracks, race meets or races held in this state; provided, such rules and regulations shall be uniform in their application and effect, and the duty of exercising this control and power is made mandatory upon such commission.'

We are of the view that the authority conferred upon the commission to make rules and regulations 'for the holding, conducting and operating of all race tracks, race meets or races held in this state,' is broad enough to sustain the rule under attack.

The appellants 'are engaged in a business which would be unlawful had not the Legislature seen fit to legalize it under certain conditions and to supervise its operations by a State Commission. What [they] are seeking in this case is to secure what they deem proper protection for what is more in the nature of a privilege than a vested right.' State ex rel. Mason v. Rose, 122 Fla. 413, 165 So. 347, 349.

The...