Smith v. Williams

Decision Date18 June 1948
PartiesSMITH et al. v. WILLIAMS, Circult Judge, et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1948.

John T Wigginton and Walter E. Rountree, both of Tallahassee, for petitioners.

A. C Franks and H. H. Eyles, both of Miami, for respondents.

SEBRING, Justice.

The petitioners seek to prohibit the respondent Circuit Judge of Dade County from entertaining a suit in equity brought by twenty-two separate corporations, partnerships and individuals who own and operate private employment bureaus and agencies in Dade County and elsewhere in the State of Florida. The question presented on objections to the issuance of a writ of prohibition by this court relates solely to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Dade County to entertain the equity suit and decide the issues presented.

On September 2 1947, certain persons, firms and corporations representing themselves to be engaged in the business of conducting and operating private employment agencies in Miami and other places in the State of Florida under licenses duly issued to them for the conduct of such businesses by the Florida Industrial Commission, filed in the Circuit Court of Dade County a bill for declaratory decree and injunction, to which the petitioners, as members of and constituting the Florida Industrial commission, a State agency, were made parties defendant. The bill alleged that the defendants in the cause have jurisdiction of and are charged with the official duty of supervising and controlling employment agencies in the State of Florida pursuant to chapter 24080, Laws of Florida 1947, F.S.A. § 449.01 et seq.; that in purported pursuance of their said official duties the defendants have adopted a certain resolution and rules providing for the governance of employment agencies, to become effective September 1, 1947 that the resolution and rules so adopted are without authority of law and in contravention of chapter 24080 supra, and operate to annul and abrogate certain provisions of the statuatory law under which private employment agencies are authorized to operate and by which such agencies are to be regulated by the Commission; that the Commission has advised the plaintiffs that if they do not conform to the resolution and rules so promulgated by the Commission they will be arrested and prosecuted and their licenses canceled for such violation. The prayer of the bill is that a decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County be entered declaring said resolution and rules to be null and void and beyond the power and authority of the Commission to promulgate, and that the defendant Commissioners, their agents and servants be restrained from any attempt to enforce them as against the plaintiffs within Dade County.

Upon the ex parte application of the plaintiffs the Circuit Court of Dade County, on September 3, 1947, entered a temporary restraining order against the defendants, enjoining them, their agents and servants from enforcing said resolution and rules until the further order of the court. On September 19, 1947, the defendants filed a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction and to dismiss the suit, on the ground that 'It affirmatively appears from the bill of complaint filed herein that this is a suit for declaratory judgment, attacking the validity of certain rules and resolutions promulgated by the Florida Industrial Commission, a State instrumentality and administrative board, with its chief headquarters in the capitol city of Tallahassee, Florida, and that the temporary injunction restrains the Florida Industrial Commission, its agents, etc., from the enforcement of such rules, and this Court is without jurisdiction to maintain such suit and/or grant relief by injunction pursuant thereto, such jurisdiction being vested in the Circuit Court of Leon County, Florida.'

At a hearing on the motion to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction the Circuit Court of Dade County entered an order denying the motion as to each ground thereof and gave the Florida Industrial Commission 30 days within which to plead further in the cause. The defendants in the suit then instituted a proceeding in this court to prohibit the Circuit Court of Dade County from entertaining jurisdiction in the pending suit on the ground that said court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues presented. In answer to a rule nisi in prohibition issued by this court the Circuit Judge who entered the order on the motions has filed his return and has set forth as his reasons for taking jurisdiction of the cause and for entering the order on the motion, that the suit was instituted by residents of Dade County and involves the property rights of said parties in Dade County; that the laws of Florida vest in the Circuit Court of Dade County the jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues presented; that no legal objections have been made by the defendants in the cause to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Dade County over the parties and the subject matter involved; and that the motion to dismiss the bill and isssolve the temporary restraining order operated as a waiver of privilege to being sued in Leon County if, in fact, a legal right to be sued in such county ever actually existed.

The matter is now before this Court for decision on the issue raised by the return filed by the respondent circuit judge to the rule nisi in prohibition and a motion of the petitioners that a writ of prohibition be issued the return of the Circuit Judge to the contrary notwithstanding.

The petitioners base their demand for a writ of prohibition upon what they conceive to be the applicability of the rule enunciated in the case of Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission v. Williams, 158 Fla. 369, 28 So.2d 431, to the facts of the case at bar; while the Circuit Judge against whom prohibition is sought contends that the principles announced in State ex rel. Florida Dry Cleaning and Laundry Board v. Atkinson, 136 Fla. 528, 188 So. 834, and State ex rel. Dade County Security Co. v. Barns, 99 Fla. 1258, 128 So. 860, are controlling.

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission v. Williams, supra, was an original proceeding instituted in this court by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to prohibit the Circuit Court of Dade County from proceeding in an equity suit then pending in said court wherein one H. G. Stewart was plaintiff and the members of the Commission were defendants. The bill in the suit alleged, in substance, that the plaintiff Stewart was a citizen and resident of Moore Haven, Glades County, Florida and ran a wholesale fish business there; that as a wholesale fish dealer he transported and sold fish taken from the waters of Lake Okeechobee to persons in Dade County and other counties in the State; that he held a license to engage in said business from the Board of Conservation of Florida which state agency by virtue of the Constitution and laws of Florida had and exercised jurisdiction over the taking for sale of fish from Lake Okeechobee; that despite the prior and continuous exercise of jurisdiction by the Board over said waters, the Game and Fresh Water Fish...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 14, 1974
    ... ... May 14, 1974 ... Rehearing Denied June 25, 1974 ... Page 315 ...         Thomas G. Pelham, of Brown & Smith, Tallahassee, for appellant ...         Wilfred C. Varn, and Charles A. Francis, of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs & Odom, Tallahassee, for ... (See State v. Knott, 1941, 148 Fla. 43, 3 So.2d 522; Smith v. Williams, 1948, 160 Fla. 580, 35 So.2d 844; 34 Fla.Jur., Venue, § 29) ...         Venue refers to the geographical area, that is, the county or ... ...
  • Williams v. Ferrentino
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1967
    ... ... Henderson v. Gay, Fla.1951, 49 So.2d 325; McCarty v. Lichtenberg, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 655; Smith v. Williams, 1948, 160 Fla. 580, 35 So.2d 844 ...         The facts here come within the exceptions delineated. The administrative order suspending the drivers' licenses was challenged upon grounds that are constitutional in nature, namely, that the right of due process of law was being ... ...
  • State, Dept. of Labor and Employment Sec. v. Lindquist
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1997
    ... ... See Smith v. Williams, 160 Fla. 580, 35 So.2d 844 (1948); Star Employment Serv. v. Florida Indus. Comm'n, 122 So.2d 174 (Fla.1960). The purpose of this ... ...
  • Iowa-Illinois Gas & Elec. Co. v. Perrine
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 15, 1953
    ... ...         [351 Ill.App. 201] Smith v. Williams, a Florida case, reported in 160 Fla. 580, 35 So.2d 844, 847, involved an order entered by the Florida Industrial Commission affecting ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Forum Selection in Administrative Appeals and the "Home Venue Privilege".
    • United States
    • May 1, 2021
    ...exception, properly lies in the county where the state, agency, or subdivision, maintains its principal headquarters. Smith v. Williams, 160 Fla. 580, 35 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1948) and Ringling Bros Barnum and Bailey Combined Shows v. State, 295 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Such a rule promo......

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