Case Name: ERVIN, Atty. Gen. v. TAYLOR et al.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1953-07-31
Citations: 66 So. 2d 816
Docket Number: 
Parties: ERVIN, Atty. Gen. v. TAYLOR et al.
Judges: ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING, HOB-SON, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 66
Pages: 816–818

Head Matter:
ERVIN, Atty. Gen. v. TAYLOR et al.
Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.
July 31, 1953.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Ralph M. McLane, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James J. English, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.
Sibley & Davis, Miami Beach, and Ward & Ward, Miami, for appellees.

Opinion:
THOMAS, Justice.
A petition was filed in the chancery court by the appellees, all officials, seeking a declaration of their rights under Chapter 26807, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1951, and a determination of the constitutionality of that law.
No respondents or defendants were named in the petition. A few days afterward the attorney general filed a reply and the state attorney filed an answer and motion to dismiss. Of course, Section 87.10 Florida Statutes 1951, and F.S.A., contains a requirement that the attorney general or the state attorney be "served with a copy of the proceedings" where an act of the legislature is "alleged to be unconstitutional" and either is "entitled to be heard", but their filing the pleadings we have mentioned did not necessarily make them adversaries. Exercise of the privilege could not supply adversaries where none had been named in the decree.
The circuit judge entered a "final decree" reciting that the cause was heard on the petition and the responses of the attorney general and state attorney, declaring the act unconstitutional, and making a temporary injunction theretofore issued permanent. To whom the temporary injunction was directed we are not told.
The attorney general thereupon took an appeal "to review that part of the Declaratory Decree" declaring the act unconstitutional and making the injunction permanent by staying provisions and penalties of the lawv The command of'the so-called permanent injunction is addressed to no one.
We do not sanction the procedure recognized by the chancellor. The complaint was a mere petition to the court to pass upon the validity of an act of the legislature. There were no adversaries, and being none, there was no actual controversy. In that situation there was no justification for adjudicating the constitutionality of the enactment. Ervin v. City of North Miami Beach, Fla., 66 So.2d 235.
The decree is reversed with directions to dismiss the petition.
Reversed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING, HOB-SON, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, J., dissents.