S. B. BALDWIN, APPELLANT,
v.
J. H. TUCKER, TAX COLLECTOR OF MONTICELLO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Baldwin sought an injunction to restrain the tax collector of Monticello from levying an allegedly excessive license tax of $125 on liquor retailers, arguing the municipal ordinance violated statutory limits capping such taxes at $50. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that equity courts do not enjoin mere trespasses absent extraordinary circumstances.
The court held that an injunction should not be granted to restrain a mere trespass on personal property except in rare cases where the harm would be irreparable due to extraordinary value or quality of the thing endangered. The threat to seize property for an excessive license tax constitutes such a trespass, and the complainant's proper remedy lies in legal action rather than equity jurisdiction.
“The courts of chancery have uniformly refused to grant an injunction to restrain the commission of a mere tresspass, except in rare cases, where the mischief would be irreparable by reason of some extraordinary value or quality of the thing endangered.”
Establishes the foundational equitable principle that courts will not enjoin ordinary trespasses, providing the basis for denying the injunction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaldwin was engaged in selling liquors at retail in Monticello and alleged the town council passed an ordinance assessing a $125 license fee on liquor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a bill for an injunction against Appellee as tax collector of the town of Monticello; to restrain him from , levying upon complainant’s property for a “ license tax.”
Complainant alleges that he is engaged in the business of selling liquors at retail in Monticello, and that he is liable to pay for a license to carry on the business not' exceeding the sum of fifty dollars, but that the town council of Monticello have passed an ordinance assessing upon retailers of liquors the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars each for a license, whereas, it is alleged, the council is prohibited from levying a greater sum than fifty dollars for a license. Although this sum has not been duly assessed against him, yet the defendant, as tax-collector, threatens to levy and collect by distress of the goods and chattels of complainant the said sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars ; that appellant is willing to pay the sum of fifty dollars; but unless restrained by injunction the collector will enforce his threat, and compel him to pay the sum so unlawfully demanded.
*259The circuit court refused an injunction, and dismissed the bill for want of equity, whereupon the complainant appealed.
The whole charge in the bill is that the defendant threatens to commit a tresspass upon the personal estate of the complainant.
The allegation is that he threatens to seize complainant’s property without process, without authority of law, or the pretence of satisfying an excessive amount demanded for a license.
So far as the court of.equity is concerned, the tax collector stands in the position of any private person threatening to seize the pi'operty of another unlawfully.
The courts of chancery have uniformly refused to grant an injunction to restrain the commission of a mere tresspass, except in rare cases, where the mischief would be irreparable by reason of some extraordinary value or quality of the thing endangered. This court has so held in a number of cases. Bryan vs. Long, 14 Fla., 366; McCollom vs. Morrison, ib., 414; Bowes vs. Hoeg, 15 Fla., 403 ; Davidson vs. Floyd, ib., 667, and authorities cited.
The question in regard to the amount which the municipality is authorized to exact for a license, under the statutes, was presented in the argument, but as this question does not enter into the case in the view we have taken in disposing of it, any opinion we might express on that subject would determine nothing.
The decree is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City of Jacksonville v. The Massey Bus. Coll., 47 Fla. 339 (Fla. 1904)…ressly presented or argued in this court, an examination of the bill of complaint discloses that it is without equity, complainant having ample remedy at law, all the property mentioned therein being personal property. The case of Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 258, is directly in point. Also see Town of Orange City v. Thayer, 15 Fla. 502, 34 South. Rep. 573, and numerous authorities there cited. The bill having failed to present a case where the relief prayed is authorized and, moreover, being entirely witho…
-
Town of Orange City v. Thayer, 45 Fla. 502 (Fla. 1903)…ress of which there is' ample remedy at law. This being true, there is no equity in this bill, and consequently the court erred in granting and in refusing to dissolve the injunction, and in overruling the demurrer. Baldwin v. Tucker, Tax Collector, 16 Fla. 258; Wordehoff v. Evers, 18 Fla., 339; Odlin v. Woodruff, 31 Fla. 160, 12 South. Rep. 227; Torpedo Co. v. Borough of Clarendon, 19 Fed. Rep. 231; Nelms v. Pinson, 92 Ga. 441, 17 S. E. Rep. 350; West v. Mayor, &c. of City of New York, 10 Paige, 539; Brow…
-
Wildwood Crate & Ice Co. v. The Citizens Bank of Inverness, 98 Fla. 186 (Fla. 1929)…narily be obtained at law in damages for an unlawful or wrongful sale thereof would be inadequate or incomplete. The rule rests upon the principle that equity will not act when there is a full, adequate and complete remedy at law. Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 258; Garcia v. Pardo, 63 Fla. 429, 57 So. R. 974; McCall v. Matheson, 66 Fla. 157, 63 So. R. 701. See also Odlin v. Woodruff, 31 Fla. 160, 12 So. R. 227; 22 L. R. A. 699; Metcalf v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531, 45 So. R. 463; 23 C. J. 553; 10 R. C. L. 1255; 32…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bowes v. Halsted H. Hoeg, 15 Fla. 403 (Fla. 1875)
- Bryan v. Long, 14 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1874)