Sligh v. Kirkwood
| Citation | 61 So. 185,65 Fla. 123 |
| Parties | SLIGH v. KIRKWOOD, Sheriff. |
| Decision Date | 07 February 1913 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to Circuit Court, Orange County; J. W. Perkins, Judge.
Petitioner by S. J. Sligh for habeas corpus to James A. Kirkwood, as Sheriff of Orange County. From a judgment remanding the relator to custody and dismissing the petition, relator brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
The power of regulating commerce among the states is in Congress and the subject of exclusive federal control.
When Congress does act, and its action covers the subject-matter its action is exclusive as to interference.
Until and unless Congress does act, and its action covers the subject-matter, the states may act.
So long as the action of the states is not repugnant to, or does not interfere with, or place burdens upon, or undertake to regulate, interstate commerce, or are mere police regulations, their action, though in aid, or if in aid, of interstate commerce, is not invalid, unless it is a direct interference.
It is not enough to render the state law invalid that it is similar to the federal act upon the same subject. It must in operation interfere directly or substantially with interstate commerce, and not be an incidental or casual interference or remotely affect it hurtfully.
Where both the acts of Congress and of the state make a defined act an offense, the commission of the act may be an offense against each, and punishable by each.
While the state cannot, under cover of exerting its police power directly regulate or burden interstate commerce, a police regulation, which has real relation to the proper protection of the people, and is reasonable in its terms, and does not conflict with any valid act of Congress, is not unconstitutional, because it may incidentally affect interstate commerce. No state statute, which even affects incidentally interstate commerce, is valid if it is repugnant to the federal Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906 (Act June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1354]). Where an act of Congress, relating to a subject on which the state may act also, limits its prohibitions, it leaves the subject open to state regulation as to the prohibitions that are unenumerated. The intent of Congress to supersede the exercise by the states of their police power will not be inferred unless the act of Congress, fairly interpreted, is in actual conflict with the law of the state.
Chapter 6236, Laws of Florida of 1911, does not conflict with the commerce clause of the federal Constitution. Neither does it clash with any of the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act of Congress of June 30, 1906 (Act June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1354]). Green or immature citrus fruit may be as deleterious to health as the same fruit in an overripe or decomposed state. The act of Congress last mentioned debars the latter, but says nothing as to the former, thus leaving the field of deleterious immaturity of fruit open to be dealt with by the states.
COUNSEL Thomas Palmer, of Tampa, and C. B. Robinson, of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.
T. F. West, Atty. Gen., C. O. Andrews, of Tallahassee, and C. B. Parkhill, of Tampa, for defendant in error.
The Florida Legislature, at its session in the year A. D. 1911, enacted the following statute:
For alleged violations of this statute, the plaintiff in error was informed against in the criminal court of record of Orange county by three several informations, each of them containing two counts; the first count in each of them charging him with the shipment to parties in another state of immature oranges, the same being citrus fruit; the second count of each of them charging him with the delivery to an agent of a common carrier for shipment to the same parties another state of the same alleged immature oranges, which oranges are therein alleged to be citrus fruit and to be immature and unfit for consumption.
The plaintiff in error was arrested upon three several warrants issued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.
...power in the premises until Congress acts. State ex rel. Burr v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 77 Fla. 366, 81 So. 498; Sligh v. Kirkwood, 65 Fla. 123, 61 So. 185; Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52, 35 S.Ct. 501, L.Ed. 835; Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 32 S.Ct. 715, 56 L.Ed. 1182; Minnesota Ra......
-
State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... Rate Cases, [81 Fla. 182] Simpson v. Shepard, ... 230 U.S. 352, 57 L.Ed. 1511, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151; ... [87 So. 778] ... Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52, 35 S.Ct. 501, 59 ... L.Ed. 835.' ... See, ... also, Western Union Tel. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ ... App.) ... ...
-
State v. Fairmont Creamery Co.
...were exported. Its object was to protect the reputation of its chief industry, the growing of fruits. The court, affirming Sligh v. Kirkwood, 65 Fla. 123, 61 So. 185, said: ‘We may take judicial notice of the fact that the raising of citrus fruits is one of the great industries of the state......
-
Kilgore Groves, Inc. v. Mayo
...which may tend to injure or destroy either the reputation or value of Florida citrus products in the world's markets. Sligh v. Kirkwood, 65 Fla. 123, 61 So. 185; Id., U.S. 52, 35 S.Ct. 501, 59 L.Ed. 835.' 139 So. text 127, 128. The allowance of .00028 grains of arsenic to one pound of peel ......