B. B. LANE,
v.
H. E. WILLIAMS, AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF JASPER, 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.
The court held that the occasional spot sales made by the employee were incidental to his primary business and did not constitute peddling requiring a license.
An employee of a tea company was convicted of peddling without a license for making occasional spot sales of shopworn samples to regular customers. Th…
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 Occupational License cases and more on FLexlaw
B. B. Lane was convicted of peddling in the City of Jasper without first procuring an occupational license. The conviction was reviewed in the circuit court upon habeas corpus. He was remanded to custody and allowed this appeal.
Lane is an employee of Jewell Tea Company located in Jacksonville. Lane’s duties are to solicit orders for merchandise from regular customers. His practice is to follow a regular route every two weeks and to call upon regular customers only. He solicits orders for delivery on his next trip. Samples of merchandise are carried for inspection. The controlling question here arises by reason of occasional sale on the spot of shopworn samples or refused merchandise. These sales are made only to regular customers and in no instance do they exceed five per cent of the gross sales for any trip. The City insists that these “spot sales” call for a peddler’s license whereas Lañe claims that they are only an incident to his business. Without question the ordinance has no application except for the “spot sales.” See Duffin v. Tucker, 113 Fla. 621, 153 So. 298; Farris v. Hall, 115 Fla. 433, 156 So. 114. “ ... If itinerant selling is purely an incident of another principal business, then it is not peddling. . . . ” — 40 Am. Jur., Sec., 13, page 918.
The authorities have not clearly defined peddling. Indeed' it would be difficult. At most it can little more than be described. The very idea suggests something quite different from what Lane was doing. To peddle suggests a sale and delivery to whom ever the occasion presents and an immediate consummation of the transaction. See City of Mt. Sterling v. Donaldson Baking Co., 287 Ky. 781, 155 S.W. (2nd) 237; Haller Baking Co. v. Borough of Rochester et al., 118 Pa. Super 501, 180 Atl. 108; National Baking Co. v. Zabel, 227 Wis. 93, 277 N.W. 691; State v. Amick 171 Md. 536, 189 Atl. 817.
*889The invalidity of the ordinance is suggested. However our conclusion is that it is inapplicable to Lane and therefore we will not pass upon its validity.
The judgment is reversed.
Thomas, C. J., BARNS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burdine's, Inc. v. City OF KEY W., 11 Fla. Supp. 78 (Monroe Cty. Cir. Ct. 1954)…in the city is deliver merchandise on its trucks to persons in the city who have given prior thereto, in person or by mail or some other means, their orders to Burdine’s stores outside the city for such merchandise. Lane v. Williams, 160 Fla. 867, 37 So. 2d 163, holds that salesmen employed by a Jacksonville company could solicit orders for merchandise from regular customers in the city of Jasper, their practice being to follow a regular route every two weeks, call upon regular customers and solicit orders…
-
City of Miami Beach v. Stephens, 28 Fla. Supp. 170 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1967)…lorida courts — Hamilton v. Collins, 114 Fla. 278, 154 So. 201 (1934); Farris v. Hall, 115 Fla. 433, 156 So. 114 (1934); Langston v. Lundsford, 122 Fla. 813, 165 So. 898 (1936); Whiddon v. Vickers, 127 Fla. 222, 172 So. 923 (1937); Lane v. Williams, 160 Fla. 887, 37 So. 2d 163 (1948); Bozeman v. City of Brooksville, 82 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1955); and [*172] Berry, et al v. City of Dania, et al, 24 Fla. Supp. 152 (1963), affirmed by Florida Supreme Court at 168 So. 2d 135 (1964). Almost the identical set of fac…
-
Town of Surfside v. Howes, 7 Fla. Supp. 50 (Surfside Mun. Ct. 1955)…ding the ordinance invalid and ordering petitioner dismissed from custody the Court stated that the facts of the case clearly showed that it was within the ruling enunciated in Duffin v. Tucker, supra. To the same effect see Lane v. Williams (Fla.), 37 So. 2d 163; Whiddon v. Vickers (Fla.), 172 So. 923; Masters v. Cobb (Fla.), 149 So. 337. [*53] My attention has been directed to a case arising recently before circuit judge Aquilino Lopez, Jr. in Key West entitled Burdine’s Inc. and Tony Pappain, plaintiffs,…
Authorities Cited
- Duffin v. Tucker, 113 Fla. 621 (Fla. 1933)
- Emmett Farris v. Hall, 115 Fla. 433 (Fla. 1934)