Judges: BUFORD, C.J. —
Attorneys: Semple Hirschman, T. E. Price and Harold Kassewitz, for Plaintiff in Error;
J. W. Watson, Jr., and Loftin, Stokes Calkins, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: May 12, 1931
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: On December 2d 1930, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, adopted Ordinance No. 950. Section 1 of said ordinance was as follows: Section 1. It shall be unlawful to conduct, operate or maintain any undertaking or embalming establishment, mortuary, funeral home, or any place for the purpose of caring for and keeping dead bodies, for holding funerals or for practicing the profession of undertaker, embalmer, mortician or funeral director in or on any part of the Avenue or the Boulevard
Summary: On December 2d 1930, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, adopted Ordinance No. 950. Section 1 of said ordinance was as follows: Section 1. It shall be unlawful to conduct, operate or maintain any undertaking or embalming establishment, mortuary, funeral home, or any place for the purpose of caring for and keeping dead bodies, for holding funerals or for practicing the profession of undertaker, embalmer, mortician or funeral director in or on any part of the Avenue or the Boulevard ..
More
This is a habeas corpus case. The ordinance is not invalid or unreasonable in its terms, for the reasons pointed out by the Chief Justice. The plaintiff in error was therefore properly remanded. But the holding in this case cannot operate to justify unreasonable application of power to restrict property rights which under appropriate allegations and proofs may be protected in equity against any unreasonableness of an ordinance if such ordinance in fact unreasonably or unconstitutionally operates against a particular individual or property, in a particular case. I therefore concur.
