R. A. MASTERS
v.
T. J. COBB, CHIEF OF POLICE
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's denial of habeas corpus, holding that the City of Fort Pierce could not impose a license tax on a truck merely delivering goods within city limits unless the city had specific charter authority to do so. The case addresses the limits of municipal licensing authority over interstate commercial carriers.
A municipality is prohibited from imposing a license tax on motor-driven trucks used solely for delivering goods from vendors to purchasers within city limits, unless the municipality has specific charter authority to do so. The tax would be permissible only if it were imposed for the privilege of conducting a business in the truck within city limits, not merely for delivery operations.
“a municipality is prohibited from imposing a license tax on the use of motor-driven trucks which are used for the purpose of merely delivering goods, wares and merchandise from the vendors thereof to the purchasers thereof within the city limits”
Establishes the core holding that delivery-only operations cannot be taxed absent charter authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR. A. Masters was arrested as a driver of a truck owned by Farris & Company, a Jacksonville meat packer, while delivering merchandise to customers in …
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 Habeas Corpus Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on writ of error to the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County to a judgment denying writ of habeas corpus and remanding petitioner to custody of chief of police of the City of Fort Pierce.
The petition shows that the petitioner was a driver of a truck operated by Farris & Company, meat packers of the City of Jacksonville, in the delivery of the meats sold by that company to its customers in the cities along the East Coast of Florida and particularly to merchants within the city limits of Fort Pierce. That petitioner had been arrested and was restrained of his liberty for violating subsection 9 of Section 1040 of the city code of the City of Fort Pierce, which reads as follows:
“Trucks and vehicles, doing business with, selling and/or delivering from, to merchants and others, not otherwise licensed — $25.00.”
The most that can be made out of the allegations of the petition is that the petitioner was charged with violating an ordinance providing for the .payment of license and that he contended that the ordinance could not apply to him because he was the driver of a truck which was a motor vehicle belonging to Farris & Company, wholesale meat dealers in Jacksonville, and that the truck was being used in the business of Farris & Company in the delivery of their merchandise to their customers and that the City of Fort Pierce could not impose a license tax upon such a truck because to do so would violate the provisions of Section 1013, R. G. S„ 1287 C. G. L.
The petition is sufficient to show prima facie right of *269the petitioner to the writ of habeas corpus. See State v. Quigg, 86 Fla. 51, 96 Sou. 8.
Under the statute above referred to, unless the City be otherwise empowered by the provisions of its charter, a municipality is prohibited from imposing a license tax on the use of motor-driven trucks which are used for the purpose of merely delivering goods, wares and merchandise from the vendors thereof to the purchasers thereof within the city limits. This would not preclude the city from imposing a license tax for the privilege of conducting a business in a truck within the city limits because that would be the imposition of a license tax for the privilege of doing business. The petition in this case alleges that the petitioner is being restrained of his liberty not for conducting a business in a truck within the city limits but because the truck was used to deliver goods and merchandise within the city limits which were purchased elsewhere for delivery there. If this is true, then the provision of the ordinance is not applicable to this case and could not be made applicable unless the city has charter authority to impose an additional license for the operation of motor vehicles within the city.
For the reasons stated, the judgment should be reversed with directions that the writ issue. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Wise, 141 Fla. 222 (Fla. 1940)…Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 So. 834; Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 So. 666, L. R. A. 1918E 949; Liberis v. Harper, 89 Fla. 477, 104 So. 835; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 So. 706; Shelton v. Coleman, 136 Fla. 625, 187 So. 266; Masters v. Cobb, 111 Fla. 267, 149 So. 337. The record discloses the following facts: F. L. Wise applied to the City of Sarasota for a permit to erect a combination dwelling, fruit packing house and display room on lots within the area of land designated under the ordinance as…
-
Solomon v. The City OF Miami Beach, 187 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…ywhere. The ordinance does not impose such additional burden on milk delivery trucks or janitorial service trucks within the City limits of Miami Beach. This case is governed by the rule of law enunciated by Justice Buford in Masters v. Cobb, 1933, 111 Fla. 267,149 So. 337, wherein the court, in construing the predecessor statute to Section 320.24, held that while a city might impose a license tax for the privilege of conducting a business in a truck within the city limits, a municipality could not impose…1 / 2
-
Burdine's, Inc. v. City OF KEY W., 11 Fla. Supp. 78 (Monroe Cty. Cir. Ct. 1954)…s where the orders are accepted and then shipped to the purchaser, the ordinance was invalid. Further, that insofar as it affected sales made in the city, the license tax was also invalid because of unjust discrimination. In Masters v. Cobb (1933), 111 Fla. 267, 149 So. 337, the Supreme Court held that a truck driver for a Jacksonville organization delivering purchases in a city which had an ordinance requiring a license upon trucks and vehicles of persons doing business and/or delivering to or from mercha…
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
- State of Fla. ex rel. E. J. Harris v. Quigg, 86 Fla. 51 (Fla. 1923)