Judges: DAVIS, J.
Attorneys: Wm. B. Farley, E.F.P. Brigham, and William K. Whitfield, (of Tallahassee) for Apellants;
Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, H.E. Carter and John L. Graham, Asistant Attorneys General, and Walsh, Beckham Ellis,
for Appellees.
Filed: Apr. 15, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This cause came on to be heard upon the transcript of the record and the briefs and arguments of the respective parties and the Court having seen and inspected the record and being advised of its opinion and judgment in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the final decree appealed from, it appearing that appellants are not in position at this time to raise or insist upon the alleged constitutionality of Chapter 16979, Acts 1935, Laws of Florida, in view of the circumsta
Summary: This cause came on to be heard upon the transcript of the record and the briefs and arguments of the respective parties and the Court having seen and inspected the record and being advised of its opinion and judgment in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the final decree appealed from, it appearing that appellants are not in position at this time to raise or insist upon the alleged constitutionality of Chapter 16979, Acts 1935, Laws of Florida, in view of the circumstan..
More
I am unable to concur in the reasons given for the judgment in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice DAVIS in this case. First because I do not think that the appellants by signing the agreement and stipulation referred to in that opinion and as found on pages 25 and 26 of the record have estopped themselves from contesting the constitutionality of Chapter 16979, Acts of 1935.
I do concur in the conclusion reached but for the reason that I deem the Act to be a valid legislative enactment for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion which I prepared and caused to be filed in the case of State, ex rel. Fulton, v. Ives,123 Fla. 401, dissenting opinion 433, 167 So. 394, dissenting opinion, 167 So. 407.
