Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Bryan
52 A.L.R. 51, 111 So. 801, 93 Fla. 415 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state legislature may validly declare that a place where gambling is conducted is a public nuisance and may authorize a court of equity to abate such a nuisance by injunction, even if the underlying acts are also criminal offenses, without violating constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury trial or due process of law.
Facts:
- Pompano Horse Club, Inc. possessed and maintained an enclosure containing a horse race track, a grandstand, and a 'betting ring'.
- The club conducted horse races at this facility, which was open to the public.
- The club operated a system where patrons purchased certificates selecting a horse to finish first, second, or third in a race.
- The money from all certificates sold for a given race was pooled together.
- Pompano Horse Club retained approximately 5% of the total money pooled for each race.
- The remaining money in the pool was distributed proportionally among the patrons who held certificates for the winning horses.
- Patrons who held certificates on losing horses lost the entire amount they paid.
- Large numbers of people patronized the facility to engage in these transactions.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida, on the relation of citizen John M. Bryan, filed a suit in equity in the state trial court against Pompano Horse Club, Inc.
- The plaintiff sought an injunction to abate the alleged gambling operations as a public nuisance.
- The defendant, Pompano Horse Club, Inc., filed a general demurrer to the complaint.
- The trial court overruled the defendant's demurrer.
- After a hearing, the trial court granted the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from conducting gambling operations on its premises.
- Pompano Horse Club, Inc. (appellant) appealed the trial court's order overruling the demurrer and granting the temporary injunction to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that defines a place where gambling on horse races occurs as a public nuisance and authorizes its abatement by a court-ordered injunction violate constitutional guarantees, including the right to a trial by jury, due process of law, and protection against double jeopardy?
Opinions:
Majority - Strum, J.
No, the statute does not violate constitutional guarantees. A state legislature has the authority under its police power to declare that a place where gambling occurs is a public nuisance and to provide for its abatement through a civil injunction. The court reasoned that equity has long held jurisdiction to abate public nuisances, a power which predates the constitutional right to a jury trial, making such a right inapplicable to this type of civil proceeding. Furthermore, this procedure does not violate due process, as it provides for notice and a hearing, nor does it constitute an uncompensated taking of property, as it only prohibits an unlawful use. Finally, it does not create double jeopardy because punishment for contempt of an injunction is a separate offense from the underlying crime of gambling. The court determined that the club's certificate system constituted gambling under Florida statutes because the participants created the fund to be won and lost, which distinguishes it from a legal 'purse, prize, or premium'.
Dissenting - Ellis, C. J.
Yes, the statute as applied is unconstitutional. A court of equity's jurisdiction is traditionally limited to matters of property and civil rights, not the prevention of crime. This proceeding is, in substance, an attempt to use a civil injunction to punish criminal conduct, thereby circumventing the defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury. The remedy for criminal acts should be prosecution in the criminal courts, which is an adequate remedy at law. The court should not expand equity jurisdiction to enjoin personal conduct that does not cause material injury to property rights, but is merely considered immoral. To construe the nuisance statute as authorizing an injunction against the crime of gambling raises grave constitutional doubts.
Dissenting - Buford, J.
Yes, the statute as applied is unconstitutional. The dissent concurs with the reasoning expressed by Chief Justice Ellis, particularly that the injunctive proceeding improperly infringes on the domain of the criminal courts and deprives the defendants of their constitutional rights.
Analysis:
This decision significantly affirms the state's police power to regulate public morals by treating repeated criminal conduct as a public nuisance. It establishes that a legislature can authorize civil, equitable remedies like injunctions to run parallel to criminal prosecutions for the same underlying acts. This ruling broadens the government's enforcement tools, allowing it to shut down operations deemed harmful to the public without needing to meet the higher burden of proof or provide the procedural safeguards, such as a jury trial, required in a criminal case. The case solidifies the distinction between a civil action against a property's unlawful use and a criminal action against a person's illegal conduct.
