Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealtrial
defendanttrialwillcompliance

Related Cases

Elias-Zacarias; Immigration and Naturalization Service v.
View Case »
Wenqin Sun v. Mukasey
View Case »
Abubaker Abushagif v. Garland
View Case »
Trench v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Garcetti v. Ceballos
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Green v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

Facts

The Florida Legislature passed a law to create a city from a provisional municipality and provide for its officers. L. Hilton Green was elected as a councilman under this law, but the Attorney General claimed the law was invalid and that Green was usurping the office of district commissioner. The trial court quashed the Attorney General's information, leading to the appeal. The court examined the legislative journals and determined that the title of the law was adequate to support the election.

The information alleges, in substance, that since the 7th day of June, 1895, the said L. Hilton Green, without authority of law has used, exercised and enjoyed the franchise, functions and powers of councilman of precinct 14 of the city of Pensacola, otherwise designated as District Commissioner of district No. 14 of the provisional municipality of Pensacola, by virtue of an election held in and for said city on the 4th day of June, 1895, in alleged compliance with the provisions of an alleged act of the Legislature of Florida.

Issue

Whether the law under which L. Hilton Green was elected was valid and whether the election was conducted in accordance with the general election law.

The legality of the election and the right of defendant in error to hold the office in question by virtue of the said election, is challenged here upon alleged grounds of infirmity in the passage of the law, and also the non-observance of certain requirements of the general election law of 1895.

Rule

The title of an act is an essential part of the law, and if the title differs materially from the act as passed, it may render the act invalid. However, if the title is sufficient to encompass the provisions of the act, the act may still be valid.

Under constitutional requirements that journals of the proceedings of the legislative bodies shall be kept and published, it has been held in many decisions that where the journal entries, as to the legislative proceedings, are explicit, and conflict even with legislative acts regularly authenticated, the journals are superior, and the courts will be governed by them as to matters clearly, explicitly and affirmatively stated therein.

Analysis

The court analyzed the discrepancies between the title of the act as passed by the Legislature and the title as approved by the Governor. It concluded that the title was broad enough to authorize the provisions for the election of municipal officers. The court also noted that the parts of the law affecting the election were separable from any unauthorized provisions, allowing the valid parts to stand.

An examination of the journals of the two Houses of the Legislature, which must control us, leaves no room to doubt that the title of the act as it passed both Houses differs, in the particulars mentioned, from the title of the enrolled bill approved by the Governor.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the election of L. Hilton Green was valid under the law.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the election of L. Hilton Green was valid under the law.

Who won?

L. Hilton Green prevailed in the case because the court found that the law under which he was elected was valid despite the Attorney General's claims.

The court has placed itself on the side of those maintaining the view first stated (State ex rel. vs. Brown, 20 Fla. 407 ; State ex rel. vs. Deal, 24 Fla. 293 ; 4 South. Rep. 899; Mathis vs. State, 31 Fla. 291 ; 12 South. Rep. 681); and as there is ample authority to sustain this view, we will not now make any departure.

You must be