Skip to main content

Mathis v. State

Citations

  • 31 Fla. 291

Syllabus

<p>1. The act of 1889, Chapter 8905, entitled an act to provide for the revision and consolidation of the public statutes of this State, did not invest the Commissioners of themselves with power to enact any new statutory law, or to revive any statute or statutes not in force at the time of the revision. The duty of the Commissioners under this act was to revise, simplify, arrange and consolidate the public statutes then in force into one body, or into the form of one act under titles, chapters and subdivisions, with side-notes to indicate the contents of the original text, with references to show from what act each section was compiled, and to the decisions of the court construing the the statutes ; and they were also authorized and directed to report to the Legislature along with the submission of the printed copy of the revision, such contradictions, omissions and imperfections as may appear in the original text of said acts, and the mode in which they shall have reconciled, supplied and amended the same ; and they were further directed to designate such acts or parts of acts as in their judgment ought to be repealed, with the reason for the same, and also recommend the passage of such new acts as may appear necessary or expedient, either in lieu of, or in addition to, any of the acts so revised and consolidated. The entii'e work of the Commissioners was to be submitted to, and be reviewed by the Legislature, and be re-enacted by that body, if it should so determine.</p> <p>2. The statutes in force in this State at the time of the revision derived their binding force from the prior action of the Legislature, independent of the act of 1889, under which the revision was made, but such new matter as was submitted by the Commissioners with the consolidation of the already existing statutes must derive its po-wer as statutory law from the sanction of the Legislature, in the form of a constitutional enactment..</p> <p>8. The provision in the Revis.ed Statutes that an a

Judges: Mabry

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.