Yent v. State

Decision Date11 November 1913
PartiesYENT et al., County Com'rs v. STATE ex rel. RICHARDSON.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

On Motion to Reinstate, November 25, 1913.

Error to Circuit Court, Franklin County; John W. Malone, Judge.

Application by the State on the relation of H. J. Richardson for writ of mandamus against R. M. Yent and others, County Commissioners. From a judgment awarding the writ, defendants bring error. Dismissed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A writ of error taken in mandamus proceedings to compel the issuance of a license to sell liquors, wines, and beers will be dismissed when the time during which the license is operative has expired before the cause on writ of error is reached for final disposition.

On Motion to Reinstate.

Whenever an election is duly held under article 19 of the Constitution 'to decide whether the sale of intoxicating liquors wines or beer shall be prohibited' in a county, and a majority of those voting at the election in the county is cast in favor of the sale of liquors, etc., therein, and in one election district of the county the vote is a tie, the sale of liquors, etc., in such election district is not thereby prohibited, since a majority vote was not cast in such election district in favor of prohibition as contemplated by article 19 of the Constitution.

COUNSEL R. Don McLeod, Jr., of Apalachicola, and J. A Edmondson and Fred T. Myers, both of Tallahassee, for plaintiffs in error.

F. B Winthrop and W. J. Oven, both of Tallahassee, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in error obtained a peremptory writ of mandamus in the circuit court for Franklin county against the plaintiffs in error, as county commissioners of said county, commanding them to issue to him a permit, under the statute, to sell liquors, wines, and beer in election district No. 2 of said county for and during the period ending October 1, 1913. The county commissioners took a writ of error returnable June 25, 1913. The cause was finally submitted here upon briefs filed September 24, 1913.

Upon reaching the case in its order on the docket, the court finds that the time during which the permit was legally operative has expired, and consequently that a decision at this time of the questions presented by the pleadings would be entirely barren of results; therefore, according to the well-established rule here, as elsewhere, the cause should be and is hereby dismissed. Galvin v. Davidson, 48 Fla. 75, 37 So. 575, and cases there cited.

Dismissed.

SHACKLEFORD, C.J., and TAYLOR, COCKRELL, HOCKER, and WHITFIFLD, JJ., concur.

On Motion to Reinstate.

PER CURIAM.

The writ of error herein having been dismissed, because the time had expired during which the license here involved was effective, a motion is made to reinstate the cause for decision on its merits, upon the ground, in effect, that a question is presented in which the public of the locality affected by the license are directly and materially interested, and a decision of the question would promote the public welfare. State ex rel. Railroad Commissioners v Southern Telephone & Construction Co., 61 So. 119.

Article 19 of the Constitution is as follows:

'Article 19. Local Option.

'Section 1. The board of county commissioners of each county in the state, not oftener than once in every two years, upon the application of one-fourth of the registered voters of any county, shall call and provide for an election in the county in which application is made, to decide whether the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines and beer shall be prohibited therein, the question to be determined by a majority vote of those voting at the election called under this section, which election shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by law for holding general elections: Provided, that intoxicating liquors, either spirituous, vinous or malt, shall not be sold in any election district in which a majority vote...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Burke v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 9 Junio 1947
    ...dismissed. As a matter of fact there have been several cases in other jurisdictions (Agee v. Cate, 180 Ala. 522, 61 So. 900; Yent v. State, 66 Fla. 336, 63 So. 452; Hale v. Berg, 41 Ind.App. 48, 83 N.E. 357; ex rel. Hollingsworth v. Armstrong, 94 Neb. 592, 143 N.W. 931), decided in another ......
  • Boulet v. City of Las Vegas
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 29 Julio 1980
    ...446, 26 S.Ct. 314, 50 L.Ed. 545 (1906); State v. Superior Court for Thurston County, 180 Wash. 519, 41 P.2d 155 (1935); Yent v. State, 66 Fla. 336, 63 So. 452 (Fla.1913). Here, appellant's failure to pay the required semi-annual license fee caused his license to expire by operation of law. ......
  • Wells v. Cochrane
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 14 Abril 1939
    ... ... See McMullen v ... County of Pinellas, 90 Fla. 398, 106 So. 73; Savage ... v. Parker, 53 Fla. 1002, 43 So. 507; Gillis v. State ... Live Stock Sanitary Board, 94 Fla. 890, 114 So. 509; ... Builders Supply Co. v. Acton, 56 Fla. 756, 47 So ... 822; Holt v. De Loach-Edwards ... 163, 31 So. 820; ... Tyler v. Peacock, 98 Fla. 981, 124 So. 463; ... Hogan v. State ex rel. Williams, 86 Fla. 361, 98 So ... 70; Yent v. State ex rel. Richardson, 66 Fla. 336, ... 63 So. 452, 49 L.R.A.,N.S., 1204; McCormick v. Bond, ... 75 Fla. 819, 78 So. 681; DuBose v. Meister, ... ...
  • State v. Shinnick
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 6 Agosto 1929
    ...State ex rel. Winkelman v. Westhues (Mo. Sup.) 269 S. W. 379; Fugel v. Becker (Mo. Sup.) 2 S.W.(2d) 743; Yent v. State, 66 Fla. 336, 63 So. 452, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1204; Cutcomp v. Utt, 60 Iowa, 156, 14 N. W. 214; State v. Grand Jury, 37 Or. 542, 62 P. There was an actual controversy when ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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