W. P. HARRELL
v.
ANTHONY J. SCHLEMAN, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF THE COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH, AND C. M. GAY, AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Harrell sought an injunction to prevent tax collection on his stamp vending machines under Florida statutes. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but a 1947 legislature act exempted such machines from taxation before appeal. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding the bill stated no grounds for relief regarding pre-enactment taxes and the new statute mooted prospective claims.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the bill states no grounds for relief regarding taxes that were legally due and payable before the 1947 exemption statute's enactment. The new statute does not apply retroactively to past-due taxes and does not render the appeal moot. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the prior tax was discriminatory or arbitrary enough to violate constitutional protections.
“Chapter 23740, supra, could not apply to the license taxes past due and payable at the time of its passage, for it makes no attempt to invalidate or cancel any license taxes legally due and payable prior to the date of its enactment.”
Establishes that the 1947 statute exempting stamp machines from taxation does not operate retroactively to invalidate previously assessed taxes.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarrell owned and operated postage stamp vending machines and was assessed county license taxes for 1946-47 under Fla. Stat. §§ 205.63 and 205.02. He …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exemption From Taxation cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a suit wherein the plaintiff-appellant sought an injunction against appellees to enjoin the defendants from imposing and collecting license taxes upon plaintiff’s stamp vending machines, according to the provisions of Sec. 205.63 and 205.02, F.S. 1941, F.S.A.
The hill was filed on January 29, 1947, and was heard on a “motion to dismiss” on October 18, 1947. In the meantime, Chapter 23,740, Acts of 1947, became effective. This 1947 Act exempts stamp machines from payment of excise or license taxes. It is very likely that the enactment of Chapter 23,740 was not known to the parties or to the Chancellor.
The decree appealed should be and it is reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.
W. P. Harrell instituted suit in the Circuit Court of Hills-borough County, on January 29, 1947, to restrain the tax collector of Hillsborough County, and the Comptroller of the State of Florida, from enforcing the collection of county license taxes due for the year 1946-47, upon certain postage stamp vending machines owned and operated by the plaintiff. The bill alleges that sections 205.63 and 205.02 of the Florida Statutes, 1941, under which the taxes are imposed, are unconstitutional insofar as they apply to the postage stamp vending machines operated by the plaintiff, for the reason that such sections unjustly discriminate against such machines by classifying them with other machines of a different character, and that the tax imposed under the sections of the statute is so burdensome, arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable that it substantially deprives the plaintiff of his right to earn a livelihood without due process of law.
The defendants filed their motions to dismiss the bill of complaint on the grounds, among others, that the bill was without equity, and on October 18,1947, the Court granted the *546motion and dismissed the bill. The plaintiff has taken an appeal from that order.
Our attention has been called to the fact that after the institution of suit but before the entry of the order appealed from, the Legislature of Florida enacted chapter 23740, Laws of Florida, 1947, exempting postage stamp vending machines of the class and character here involved from further taxation. It is suggested by one of the parties to this appeal that the appeal has become moot by virtue of the enactment of the above law.
We do not understand that the enactment of chapter 23740, supra, had the effect of rendering moot the appeal which came to us after the passage of the statute by reason of the entry of the order sustaining the motions to dismiss the bill of complaint. In the bill of complaint the plaintiff sought relief against license taxes already imposed and due and payable as of October 1, 1946 for the tax year 1946-1947. Chapter 23740, supra, could not apply to the license taxes past due and payable at the time of its passage, for it makes no attempt to invalidate or cancel any license taxes legally due and payable prior to the date of its enactment.
As to such taxes, it is our opinion that the bill of complaint states no grounds for relief. The power to impose the license tax complained of was in the legislature and we cannot say that the tax was discriminatory or was so arbitrary or oppressive as to amount to a denial of due process, equal protection of the laws, or other constitutional property right of the plaintiff. See Rackley v. Stoutamire, 132 Fla. 33, 180 So. 375.
No question is before us as to the power or authority of the taxing officials to impose and collect license taxes on the machines involved for taxing years subsequent to the enactment of chapter 23740, supra, and we think it fair to assume that no attempt will be made to impose such taxes in the face of the 1947 statute which forbids the imposition of license taxes on the use of such machines after its passage.
From the conclusions reached it follows that we should now recede from the opinion and judgment heretofore rendered reversing the order appealed from, and that the order brought here for review should stand affirmed.
*547It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN, ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.
HOBSON, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)…ned by F.S. § 627.733(3), F.S.A., whether the means by which such security is provided is insurance or some other approved method. .F.S. § 627.737(2), F.S.A., referring to benefits payable under F.S. § 627.736(1) (a), F.S.A. . Harrell v. Schleman, 160 Fla. 544, 36 So. 2d 431 (1948) ; Adams v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 78 Fla. 362, 82 So. 850 (1919). . See, generally, validity and construction of “no-fault” automobile insurance plans, 42 A.L.R.3d 229. . See the report of the TT. S. Dept, of Tra…
-
Curless v. The Cnty. OF Clay, 395 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…a statute which has already been voided by repeal. An issue does not become moot, however, if the effect of not deciding the issue differs from the relief that might be granted by ruling on the issue. See, e. g., Harrell v. Schleman, 160 Fla. 544, 36 So. 2d 431 (1948). Although the Curlesses seek to have a repealed ordinance declared invalid, which might ordinarily make the issue moot, such a ruling would also have the effect of nullifying the Zoning Commission’s denial of the rezoning application and woul…
-
Earnest Overstreet v. Pulver, 125 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…of Florida has upon two occasions upheld the classification for the tax imposed by this section: Rackley v. Stoutamire, 132 Fla. 33, 180 So. 375, which involved the dispensing of nuts by coin-operated machines, and Harrell v. Schleman, 160 Fla. 544, 36 So. 2d 431, which involved the dispensing of postage stamps by a coin-operated machine. A machine, actuated by a coin deposit, which performs a service of value is as clearly within the statute as a machine which dispenses valuable merchandise. Cf. Pellicer v.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J. v. Rackley v. Frank Stoutamire, 132 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1938)