Wheeler v. Meggs
| Decision Date | 13 May 1918 |
| Citation | 75 Fla. 687,78 So. 685 |
| Parties | WHEELER et al. v. MEGGS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.
Suit by R. E. Wheeler and others, against L. L. Meggs and others comprising the Board of Commissioners of Duval County, and Fred M. Ironmonger as Supervisor of Registration, to enjoin the holding of a local option election. Decree for respondents, and complainants appeal and apply for an extraordinary writ of injunction pending appeal. Application denied.
Syllabus by the Court
Under the provision of the Constitution that the Supreme Court shall have the power to issue 'all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction,' the Supreme Court should not, assuming that it has the power to do so, in a case on appeal, enjoin the holding of a local option election when an injunction has been refused by a circuit judge, unless it clearly appears that the election has been called in violation of law, and that no other adequate remedy is afforded by law.
The provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted with reference to their relation to each other, unless a different intent is clearly manifest.
A 'primary election' by qualified electors who are members of a political party, to elect party candidates and committeemen and delegates under the statute, is not a 'state election' to choose officers by any or all electors qualified under the Constitution.
It is not clear that the organic provision that no local option election shall 'take place within sixty days' before 'any state or national election' has reference to a statutory 'primary election' to nominate party candidates for office, etc., as well as to a 'state election' to choose officers.
It does not clearly appear that the irregularities and illegalities complained of in the proceedings for calling the local option election will render the election invalid.
COUNSEL Alex. St. Clair-Abrams, of Jacksonville, for appellants.
Don Register, A. W. Cockrell, F. P. Fleming, H. P. Adair, and Frank E. Jennings, all of Jacksonville, for appellees.
Appellants brought suit to enjoin the holding of a local option election called under article 19 of the Constitution and section 1209 et seq., Gen. Stats., to take place in Duval county May 14 1918, pursuant to a call made by the county commissioners on April 10, 1918, the grounds for equitable relief being certain alleged irregularities and illegalities in the proceedings for calling the election, and also an allegation that if the election is held on May 14, 1918, it will take place within 60 days before the primary election to be held June 4, 1918, in violation of the Constitution and statutes which provide that such local option elections 'shall be held within sixty days from the time of presenting said application, but if any such election should thereby take place within sixty days of any state or national election, it shall be held within sixty days after any such state or national election.' Section 1, art. 19, Constitution. Section 1212, Gen. Stats., Compiled Laws 1914.
The circuit judge denied the injunction, the complainants appealed, and have applied to this court for an extraordinary writ or order enjoining the holding of the local option election on May 14, 1918, pending the disposition of the appeal herein taken. See Jacksonville Electric Company v. Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 229, 272, 18 So. 677, 30 L. R. A. 540, 51 Am. St. Rep. 24.
The Constitution provides that:
'The circuit courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in equity,' and that 'the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases * * * in equity originating in circuit courts,' and 'shall have power to issue * * * all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.' Sections 5 and 11, art. 5, Constitution.
Under the provision of the Constitution that the Supreme Court shall have the power to issue 'all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction,' the Supreme Court should not, assuming that it has the power to do so, in a case on appeal enjoin the holding of a local option election when an injunction has been refused by a circuit judge, unless it clearly appears that the election has been called in violation of law, and that no other adequate remedy is afforded by law. See Cohen v. L'Engle, 24 Fla. 542, 5 So. 235.
Wherever the word 'election' appears in the Constitution of 1885 other than in article 19, it has reference to the election held under the Constitution biennially in November for choosing state and other officers; and there is no reference in the Constitution to elections for choosing party candidates for office to be voted for at the election provided for in the Constitution. And the statutes of the state then made no provision for elections to nominate party candidates for office.
Article 19 ordains that no local option election provided for therein shall 'take place within sixty days' before 'any state or national election.' The statute of 1887 merely restates the organic provision. Section 1212, Gen. Stats. 1906, Florida Compiled Laws 1914.
The provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted with reference to their relation to each other unless a different intent is clearly manifest.
The statute of 1913 (Laws 1913, c. 6469 [Comp. Laws 1914, § 277e et seq.]) provides for 'primary elections' in June to nominate party candidates to be voted for at the state elections held in November under the Constitution, and to elect party committeemen and delegates.
A 'primary election' by qualified electors who are members of a political party, to elect party candidates and committeemen and delegates under the statute, is not a 'state election' to choose officers by any or all electors qualified under the Constitution. See Bigelow v. Board of Sup'rs, 18 Cal.App. 715, 124 P. 554. Even if the considerations that prompted the provision forbidding a local option election to be held within 60 days before a state or national election are applicable to a primary election, this fact would not of itself justify a judicial extension of the restrictive words 'any state or national election' used in article 19 of the Constitution. The provision was not specifically extended to conventions for the nomination of party candidates and for the selection of party committeemen and delegates which were in vogue when the Constitution was framed. The Legislature has substituted primary elections for conventions in the nomination of party candidates for office and for the selection of party committeemen and delegates, but it has not interpreted the organic provision as including 'primary elections,' as it merely uses the language of the Constitution, viz., 'any state or national election.' Section 1212, Gen. Stats.
The sale of intoxicating liquors, wines or beer under a license is subject to be terminated by a majority vote against such sale in a local option election duly held under article 19 of the Constitution.
It is not clear that the organic provision that no local option election shall 'take place within sixty days' before 'any state or national election' has reference to a statutory 'primary election' to nominate party candidates for office, etc., as well as to a 'state election' to choose officers. See Haas v. City of Neosho, 139 Mo.App. 293, 123 S.W. 473; Bigelow v. Board of Sup'rs, 18 Cal.App. 715, 124 P. 554. If a 'primary election' to nominate party candidates is a 'state election' within the meaning of the Constitution, the provisions of the Constitution applicable to state elections may affect the validity of the primary election law. Chapter 6469, Acts of 1913. If the primary election law is invalid, it does not affect the time for holding the local option election.
The statute affords a remedy in providing that a local option election may, at the suit of any resident of the county, be decreed to be null and void if illegally held. Section 1216, Gen. Stats.
The appellants' portion of the expense of holding a local option election may not of itself afford and equity as against all the taxpayers and the public, who are represented by the appellees, to enjoin the holding of the election when it does not clearly appear that the election will be held in violation of law. If the election is legal and forbids further sales of intoxicating liquors, the appellants are not entitled to relief. If the election is legal and does not forbid sales of liquor in the county, the appellants are not injured. If the election is illegally held, it may 'be adjudged to be illegal and void' at the suit of any resident of the county in the statutory proceeding, the mere delay in the statutory remedy not of itself affording an equity for injunction; it not being clear that holding the election will be unlawful. Enjoining a legal election irreparably injures the public.
Upon a consideration of the entire transcript it does not clearly appear that the irregularities and illegalities complained of in the proceedings for calling the local option election will render the election invalid.
The application is denied.
I cannot concur in the decision of the majority of the court, because I am firmly convinced that the Constitution of Florida prohibits the holding of a local option election within 60 days of a primary election.
Article 19 contains this clause:
'Elections under this section shall be held within sixty days from the time of presenting said application, but if any such election should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sailor v. State
...with each other. Sylvester v. Tindall 154 Fla. 663, 18 So.2d 892 (1944); Amos v. Mathews, 99 Fla. 1, 126 So. 308 (1930); Wheeler v. Meggs, 75 Fla. 687, 78 So. 685 (1918). We may conclude then that the right to trial in the county where the crime was committed is a right of the same characte......
-
Burnsed v. Seaboard Coastline R. Co.
...to their relation to each other, that is in pari materia, since every provision was inserted with a definite purpose. Wheeler v. Meggs, 75 Fla. 687, 78 So. 685 (1918); Scarborough v. Webb's Cut Rate Drug Co., 150 Fla. 754, 8 So.2d 913 (1942); Thomas v. State, 58 So.2d 172 (Fla.) This Court ......
-
Paramount Enterprises, Inc. v. Mitchell
... ... 235; Jacksonville Electric Light Co. v. City ... of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 229, 18 So. 677, 30 L. R. A ... 540, 51 Am. St. Rep. 24; Wheeler v. Meggs, 75 Fla ... 687, 78 So. 685; Astca Investment Co. v. County of Lake ... et al., 86 Fla. 639, 98 So. 824; and Stewart v ... Thursby ... ...
-
Antuono v. City of Tampa
...to take place before the return day of the appeal on the merits of the case See Cohen v. L'Engle, 24 Fla. 542, 5 So. 235; Wheeler v. Meggs, 75 Fla. 687, 78 So. 685. See, also, Astca, etc., v. County of Lake, 98 So. 824, decided June term, 1922, but not yet [officially] reported. In view of ......