State Ex Rel. Davis v. Rose

• Decision Date: 09 May 1929
• Citation: 122 So. 225,97 Fla. 710
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DAVIS, Atty. Gen., et al. v. ROSE et al., Florida Real Estate Commission.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

122 So. 225

97 Fla. 710

STATE ex rel. DAVIS, Atty. Gen., et al. v. ROSE et al., Florida Real Estate Commission.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

May 9, 1929

Quo warranto by the State of Florida, on the relation of Fred H Davis, Attorney General, and another, against Walter W. Rose and others, as the Florida Real Estate Commission. On demurrer to the information.

Demurrer sustained, and writ quashed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Authority and responsibility for bringing quo warranto information was with Attorney General, and joinder of another as co-relator was unnecessary. Authority and responsibility for bringing quo warranto information, requiring respondents to answer by what authority they claimed to have or exercise office and powers of Florida real estate commissioners, was with Attorney General, and relator's grievance as citizen or real estate broker added nothing to such authority, and took nothing from Attorney General's responsibility, and joinder of said citizen as a co-relator, or as one in whose behalf information was filed, was unnecessary.

One asserting unconstitutionality of statute should show beyond reasonable doubt that statute conflicts with specific constitutional provision. One who asserts the unconstitutionality of a statute should show beyond all reasonable doubt that statute inevitably conflicts with some designated provision of the Constitution.

Statute purporting to be complete revision of laws relating to real estate brokers impliedly repealed prior act relating thereto (Laws 1927, c. 12223; Laws Ex. Sess. 1925, c. 11336). Laws 1927, c. 12223, entitled an act to define, regulate, and register real estate brokers and real estate salesmen, and to regulate their relations with the public, and which was intended to be a complete revision of said subject, impliedly repealed Laws Ex. Sess. 1925, c. 11336, relating to same subject.

Legislature may require property to be used as well as business to be conducted so as to prevent injury to public. Legislature may if public good is deemed to demand it, require property to be used by persons as well as their business to be conducted so as to prevent harm or injury to public.

Police power is not one to pass unconstitutional laws; test of such power being effect which pursuit of calling has on public weal. The police power is not a power to pass unconstitutional laws, but test of such power is found in effect which the pursuit of the calling involved has on the public weal, rather than in the inherent nature of the calling.

Proper regulations under police power are primarily for Legislature subject to court review to determine whether within constitutional guaranties. What regulations are proper and needful under the police power is primarily for legislative decision, but court must finally determine whether such regulations are so just and reasonable as to be in harmony with constitutional guaranties.

Possession and enjoyment of all rights and property are subject to police power. The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to the police power, and property of every kind including contract rights, and rights in things intangible as well as tangible, is held subject to general regulations which are necessary for the common good and general welfare.

State's police power may extend to providing for detection and prevention of fraud. The state's police power is not confined to regulations looking to preservation of life health, order, and decency, but may extend to laws providing for detection and prevention of imposition and fraud.

Wisdom policy, or motives prompting legislative enactment are not subject to judicial control, so far as they do not contravene constitutional limitations. Legislature has great latitude in exercise of its powers, and the wisdom, policy, and motives which prompt a legislative enactment, so far as they do not contravene some constitutional limitation, express or implied, are not subject to judicial control.

No statute should be declared unconstitutional, unless it appears beyond reasonable doubt that it is in positive conflict with Constitution. No duly enacted statute should be declared by court to be inoperative as being in conflict with organic law, unless it clearly appears beyond all reasonable doubt that under any rational view it is in positive conflict with constitutional law.

Doubts as to statute's constitutionality are to be resolved in favor of statute. All doubts as to the constitutionality of a statute are to be resolved in favor of the statute.

Business of dealing in realty as broker or salesman on commission is proper one for police requlation (Laws 1927, c. 12223). The subject of Laws 1927, c. 12223, regulating the business of buying or selling real property by real estate brokers and real estate salesmen on commission for a percentage of the agreed price, or a specific fee to be paid by purchaser or seller, is a proper one for police regulation.

Title merely mentioning matters germane to one subject is not invalid as relating to more than one subject (Const. art. 3, § 16). The amplification of title of statute does not vitiate the title, nor render act subject to criticism that it embraces two subjects in violation of Const. art. 3, § 16, if the title merely mentions matters germane to one subject.

Title fairly giving notice of subject of act is sufficient, and need not be index to contents thereof (Const. art. 3, § 16). If the title to an act fairly gives notice of the subject of the act so as to reasonably lead to an inquiry into the body thereof, it is sufficient under Const. art. 3, § 16, requiring subject to be briefly expressed in title to the act, and title need not be an index to contents of act.

Legislative interest should be sought and obtained, and statute should be construed to make it valid and effective to advance and not defeat object, if language permits. In construing statute, legislative intent should be sought for and obtained, and statute be so construed as to make it valid and effective to advance and not defeat object sought to be accomplished, if its language permits.

Ambiguous words in statute should be interpreted in light of legislative intent to avoid violation of constitutional limitations, if possible. If there are ambiguous terms in statute, or powers conferred, which, when words conveying them are literally interpreted, would seem to be violative of constitutional limitations, but, when applied to practical workings of agencies supplied by statute for execution of its purpose, are found to vest no such powers or violate any such limitations, such ambiguous words should be so applied and interpreted in the light of the legislative intent as revealed in the act.

Legislators are presumed to be just as loyal to government as are occupants of judicial offices. Since legislators are under the same oath to support the Constitution and government of the United States and of the state that judicial officers are, they are presumed to be just as loyal to the government as are occupants of judicial offices.

Right to pursue lawful business is 'property' and one of privileges of citizen of which he cannot be deprived without due process of law. Citizen's right to pursue any lawful business is 'property' that cannot be taken from him without due process of law, and is one of privileges of a citizen of United States of which he cannot be deprived without invading his right to liberty. [Ed. Note.--For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First, Second, and Third Series, Property.]

Legislature cannot, under guise of protecting public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business nor impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions on lawful occupations. Legislature may not, under the guise of protecting public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business nor impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions on lawful occupations.

Statute regulating real estate brokers and creating real estate commission held not invalid as denying equality before law and inalienable rights (Laws 1927, c. 12223; Const. Declaration of Rights, § 1). Laws 1927, c. 12223, providing for regulating and registering of real estate brokers and salesmen, and creating state real estate commission to administer the act, and prescribing its powers, held not violative of Const. Declaration of Rights,§ 1, as denying all men equality before law and certain inalienable rights therein specified.

Statute for regulating and registering real estate brokers and creating real estate commission held not invalid as denying right to jury trial (Laws 1927, c. 12223; Const. Declaration of Rights, § 3). Laws 1927, c. 12223, providing for regulating and registering of real estate brokers and salesmen, and creating state real estate commission to administer the act, and prescribing its powers, held not invalid as denying right of trial by jury given by Const. Declaration of Rights, § 3.

Statute regulating real estate brokers and creating real estate commission held not invalid as imposing cruel and unusual punishment (Laws 1927, c. 12223; Const. Declaration of Rights, § 8). Laws 1927, c. 12223, providing for regulating and registering of real estate brokers and salesmen, and creating state real estate commission to administer the act, and prescribing its powers, held not invalid as imposing cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Const. Declaration of Rights, § 8.

Statute regulating real estate brokers and creating real estate commission held not invalid as providing double jeopardy (Laws 1927, c. 12223; Const. Fla. Declaration of Rights, § 12; Const. U.S. Amend. 5). Laws 1927, c. 12223, providing for regulating and registering of real estate brokers and salesmen, and...