STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. WAYNE F. MCJUNKIN, PETITIONER,
v.
W. S. MCLIN, AS MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
In this mandamus case, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the Motor Vehicle Commissioner's refusal to issue a bus license tag under the old 1925 fee schedule, instead requiring the higher fee mandated by the 1931 law. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that a statutory proviso protecting mileage taxes applied to license tag fees.
The court held that the proviso protecting mileage taxes and fees applies only to mileage taxes and fees under separate legislation, not to license tag fees. Therefore, the new 1931 license tag fee schedule applies to all motor buses, including those under Railroad Commission supervision, and the Commissioner properly refused the lower 1925 fee.
“The license tax sought here to be collected for the license tag is not 'a mileage tax or fee.”
The court's key distinction between the type of fee at issue and what the statutory proviso actually protected
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWayne F. McJunkin sought a license tag for a motor bus operating over Florida public highways under the 1925 fee schedule of $69.75. The Motor Vehicle…
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 Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case alternative writ of mandamus was issued to the Bespondent to require him to show cause why he should not issue a license tag to the Belator to be used on a motor bus operating over certain public highways in the State of Florida upon the payment of the fee required under the provisions of Chapter 10182 Laws of Fla., Acts of 1925. The Bespondent filed his return which shows that' the Belator demanded a license tag to be issued for the bus described under the provisions of Chapter 10182, supra, for and at the price of $69.75 and that the respondent' refused to issue such license tag because the provisions in this regard of chapter 10182, supra, had been superseded by the provisions of chapter 15625, Acts of 1931, wherein and whereby a license tag costing $99.00 plus 50e for service fee is required to authorize the operation of the bus in controversy.
The Belator has moved for the issuance of peremptory writ', which is equivalent to demurrer to the return and upon which the Court may order the peremptory writ issued or the alternative writ dismissed.
It is the contention of the Belator that' the provision of section 8 of chapter 15625, Acts of 1931, to-wit: “Provided further that nothing in this Act shall repeal, alter or diminish the mileage tax or fees now provided by law for motor vehicles coming under the supervision of the Bail-road Commission of the State of Florida”, precludes the license tag schedule as provided in that Act' from applying to the bus here under consideration because it is admitted that this bus is operated under the supervision of the Bail-road Commission.
The construction sought to be placed upon this provision of section 8 of the Act is not tenable. The license tax sought *967here to be collected for the license tag is not 'a mileage tax or fee. Our construction of the proviso is that it applies to the mileage tax or mileage fees which are required under the provisions of chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, and has no application to the fees fixed for license tags by the provisions of chapter 15625, supra.
For the reasons stated, the motion for peremptory writ is denied and the alternative writ is dismissed. It is so ordered.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dickenson v. Cahoon, 107 Fla. 155 (Fla. 1932)…provisions of amended Section 1011 R. G. S., supra, are applicable to all vehicles using the roads of this State, including those certificated under Chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, as well as others (See State ex rel. McJunkin vs. McLin, Commissioner, 103 Fla. 965, 138 Sou. Rep. 480), the fact that the Legislature in enacting Chapter 14764, supra, deliberately undertook to separately classify, and lay down special regulations concerning the operation of [*160] certificated vehicles using the highways of this…
-
Leonard v. Sweat, 114 Fla. 60 (Fla. 1934)…amended Section 1011, Rev. Gen. St., supra., are applicable to all vehicles using the roads of this State, including those certificated under Chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, as well as others (See State, ex rel. Mcjunkin v. McLin, Commissioner [Fla.], 138 So. 480), the fact that the Legislature in enacting Chapter 14764, supra, deliberately undertook to separately classify and lay down special regulations concerning the operation of certificated vehicles using the highways of this State as a means of conduct…