State Ex Rel. Mason v. Rose

• Citation: 165 So. 347,122 Fla. 413
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MASON et al. v. ROSE et al.
• Decision Date: 22 January 1936
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

165 So. 347

122 Fla. 413

STATE ex rel. MASON et al. v. ROSE et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

January 22, 1936

Original mandamus proceeding by the State of Florida, on the relation of A. Mason and Ernest McGinnis, against Carl G. Rose and others, as and constituting the members of the State Racing Commission of the State of Florida and others.

Motion to quash alternative writ granted.

COUNSEL Shutts & Bowen and Charles A. Carroll, all of Miami, for relators.

T. G Futch, of Leesburg, Carl T. Hoffman and L. L. Robinson, both of Miami, and Bussey, Mann & Barton, of St. Petersburg, for respondents.

OPINION

BROWN Justice.

The relators are owners of racing greyhounds engaged in the business of racing such dogs in this and other states for prize or purse money. The petition for, and the alternative writ of, mandamus, allege that twelve of the dogs owned by relator Mason are quartered in kennels especially provided by and at the Biscayne Kennel Club in Dade County under a written permit from said club with the understanding and intention of said relator that the said dogs should engage in racing at such kennel club and at other licensed dog race tracks in this state during the ensuing racing season. Sixteen of such dogs owned by the relator McGinnis are kenneled in such county on private property, and intended to be used by him in racing at said track. The greyhounds thus owned and intended to be raced during the coming season by the relators, it is alleged, are duly registered with the National Coursing Association, and unincorporated association interested in the undertaking and advancement of greyhound coursing and racing and in improving the class of breed of racing greyhounds in the United States and certain foreign counties. It is alleged that said association has its principal offices and place of business in Kansas City, Mo., and has a membership of approximately 3,000 members, including owners and breeders of dogs, and was formed in 1886, when it began its record registry of racing dogs, which records are commonly referred to as a studbook, which is the nationally recognized studbook for racing greyhounds, and charges reasonable fees for registration. That relators are members in good standing of said association.

The relators also allege that they are members in good standing of an unincorporated association of racing greyhound owners and breeders, known as the National Greyhound Breeders &amp Racing Association, consisting of approximately all breeders and owners of racing greyhounds, who are also members of the National Coursing Association. That among the purposes of the National Greyhound Breeders & Racing Association is the protection of the interests of the dog-owner membership thereof, through officials and committees duly appointed by the membership, who are constantly working for and on behalf of the membership of said association and to give such members the benefit of this collective association of dog owners which is working for the improvement and standardization of the conditions under which such racing is done, so as to benefit and protect the owners of said dogs and the supporting public. That the rules of said association are not contrary to the rules of the Florida State Racing Commission other than the order or rule adopted on October 21, 1935, which rule, so adopted by said racing commission reads as follows:

'The owner of any dog desiring to enter the same in any race meeting conducted under license from the Florida State Racing Commission shall submit to such licensee evidence showing qualifications of said dog to enter such racing meeting, together with evidence of its registry with the American Kennel Club. Such applicant shall also sign a pledge to the Florida State Racing Commission agreeing that such applicant will abide by the rules now or hereafter adopted by the Florida State Racing Commission, and will waive all rules of any registry or racing association of which such applicant is a member which have not been adopted by the Florida State Racing Commission.'

The petition and writ further allege that the American Kennel Club, referred to in the above-mentioned order or rule, has no record of the pedigree of said racing dogs prior to a small number of registries made after the announcement, in August of 1935, of an intention of said racing commission to make an order designating that source of registry. That said American Kennel Club did not previously register racing dogs as a class, but that its studbook has been a registry of show dogs or bench dogs, of all kinds. That the studbook records of the National Coursing Association, built up over more than a generation, would not be available through the American Kennel Club except as the latter might copy and appropriate such information to the cost and detriment of said pioneer organization in that field; that only about 700 racing greyhounds are registered to date with the American Kennel Club, whereas the number of dogs required for normal racing at the licensed tracks in this state for the coming season is approximately 4,000. That the order or rule above quoted was adopted by the State Racing Commission pursuant to an understanding with the members of the racing commissions of other states, and is an attempt on the part of respondents to destroy the worth of the National Coursing Association studbook and to deprive relators and others similarly situated of the benefit of their registration in said studbook for dog-racing purposes in Florida, and also constituting an effort to nullify and abolish the National Greyhound Breeders & Racing Association, of which the relators are members in good standing. That in order to race their dogs under said rule, relators would be required to re-register their dogs with the American Kennel Club, and would deprive relators and 90 per...