H. W. METCALF COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
W. E. MARTIN, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
H. W. Metcalf Company sought injunctive relief to prevent a tax collector from seizing bar fixtures due to a dispute over whether the company operated one or two places of business for licensing purposes. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the bill, holding that equity courts should not enjoin tax collectors' seizures except in rare cases where property is peculiarly valuable and cannot be adequately compensated through damages at law.
A court of equity should not enjoin a tax collector's threatened seizure except in rare cases where property is peculiarly valuable and cannot be adequately compensated in damages. The facts alleged here—that fixtures were costly to replace and essential to business—do not establish irreparable injury, as monetary damages would provide adequate compensation. Therefore, the bill should have been dismissed.
“A court of equity should not entertain a bill for an injunction against a tax collector who threatens to seize and sell personal property except in rare cases where the property is peculiarly valuable and cannot be compensated adequately in damages.”
Establishes the narrow scope of equitable jurisdiction to enjoin tax collector seizures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH. W. Metcalf Company operated a liquor sales business in a building with two separate rooms not directly connected by personal ingress and egress. 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 License Tax cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— The appellant filed a bill in equity in the circuit court for Orange county alleging in brief that it is engaged in the sale of liquors in one place of business, but that the tax collector demands a license tax for two places of business because liquor is sold by complainant in' two separate rooms not directly and immediately connected by any means of personal ingress and egress from one to the other; that because of the refusal of complainant to pay two license taxes the tax collector has seized and -threatens to sell one pool table and all bar fixtures used in one of the places to-enforce the collection of said license tax; that complainant will suffer irreparable injury; that said bar fixtures can only be replaced at great cost and by ordering from a great distance and after long delay, and that the same are absolutely essential to the business. The prayer is for an injunction against the tax collector to prevent the removal and sale of said property, and that complainant be decreed exempt from the payment of the additional license tax. An answer was filed showing the sale of liquor at two separate and distinct places of business. Testimony was taken and on the final hearing the bill of complaint was dismissed. The complainant appealed and assigns as error the final decree dismissing the bill of complaint.
A court of equity should not entertain a bill 'for an injunction against a tax collector who threatens to seize and sell personal property except in rare cases where the property is peculiarly valuable and cannot be compensated adequately in damages. This is true even if the officer is acting without lawful authority, as such seizure is a mere trespass remediable by action at law. Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 258; Odlin v. Woodruff, 31 Fla. 160,-12 South. Rep. 227.
Where an injunction is prayed on the ground of irreparable injury the bill of complaint should allege facts to enable the court to determine whether the injury will be irreparable. A mere general allegation that the injury will be irreparable is not sufficient. When the facts alleged do not show that irreparable injury will be sustained an injunction should not be granted. Indian River Steamboat Co. v. East Coast Transp. Co., 28 Fla. 387, 10 South. Rep. 480; Town of Orange City v. Thayer, 45 Fla. 502, 34 South. Rep. 573.
Where it is apparent to-an appellate court that a bill of complaint does not state a case cognizable in a court of equity, it is the duty of the court to notice the defect, even though the question of equitable jurisdic-1 tion is not presented in the pleading or otherwise called to the attention of the trial or appellate court. City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 South. Rep. 432; Williams v. Peeples, 48 Fla. 316, 37 South. Rep. 572; Florida Packing & Ice Co. v. Carney, 49 Fla. 293, 38 South. Rep. 602.
The facts alleged to show that irreparable injury will be sustained if injunction does not issue to restrain the sale of barroom fixtures are that complainant’s business of selling liquor in a particular building will be entirely broken up and destroyed and that the barroom fixtures can only be replaced at great cost and by ordering from a great distance and after long delay, and that the same are absolutely essential to the business. This does not show an injury will result which cannot be fully compensated in damages by an action at law; but the facts rather tend to show such compensation will be adequate and complete for any loss complainant might sustain even if the action of the tax collector be illegal. Under these circumstances the bill should have been dismissed by the court even though, no demurrer was interposed to the bill. There is no equity shown to decree the complainant exempt from the payment of the license tax demanded by the tax collector. The decree dismissing the bill of complainant is af- - firmed.
Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker and Park hill, JJ., concur;
Shackleford, C. J., providentially absent, concurred in the opinion when prepared.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)…sent, and 3, the point decided must be in substance and effect within the issue. ’ Sec. 26, n. 1 and 3.” Brown on Jurisdiction, section 3, note 3. See also Hayes v. McGee, 17 Fla. 158, 161; Finnegan v. Fernandina, 15 Fla. 379; Metcalf Co. v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531, 45 So. 463; Simmons v. Williford, 60 Fla. 359, 53 So. 452; Johnson v. McKinnon, 54 Fla. 221, 45 So. 23; Edmonds v. Gracy, 61 Fla. 593, 54 So. 899; Smith v. Powell, 80 Fla. 166, 85 So. 654; Tampa & Gulf Coast R. Co. v. Mulhern, 73 Fla. 146, 74 So. 2…1 / 2
-
Brown v. The Fla. Chautauqua Ass'n, 59 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1910)
-
Davis v. Wilson, 139 Fla. 698 (Fla. 1939)…iple of law that facts constituting the basis of alleged irreparable injury must be alleged. Indian River S. S. Co. v. East Coast Trans. Co., 28 Fla. 387, 10 Sou. Rep. 480; Orange City v. Thayer, 45 Fla. 502, 34 Sou. Rep. 573; Metcalf Co. v. Martin, 54 Fla. 531, 45 Sou. Rep. 463; Drew Lumber Co. v. Union Investment Co., 66 Fla. 382, 63 Sou. Rep. 836; Williams v. Dormany, 99 Fla. 496, 126 Sou. Rep. 117. And, where the alleged trespass or threatened injury is to trees standing on land, in order to.grant an i…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Indian River Steamboat Co. v. E. Coast Transp. Co., 28 Fla. 387 (Fla. 1891)
- The City of Jacksonville v. The Massey Bus. Coll., 47 Fla. 339 (Fla. 1904)
- Williams v. Peeples, 48 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1904)
- Town of Orange City v. Thayer, 45 Fla. 502 (Fla. 1903)
- Fla. Packing & Ice Co. v. Carney, 49 Fla. 293 (Fla. 1905)
- Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 258 (Fla. 1877)
- Odlin v. Woodruff, 31 Fla. 160 (Fla. 1893)