EMMETT FARRIS, AND/OR ROBERT SMITH,
v.
ARTHUR HALL, CHIEF OF POLICE, LAKE CITY
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 held that petitioners Smith and Farris were improperly convicted of violating a city ordinance requiring an occupational license tax for peddling from motor vehicles. The Court found no material difference between this case and Duffin v. Tucker and therefore ordered the petitioners discharged.
The petitioners should be discharged from custody. The Court found no material difference between this case and Duffin v. Tucker, which had determined that a similar ordinance was improperly applied.
“The affidavit charges an offense which could properly be the subject of a municipal ordinance. It charges in effect that the accused engaged in peddling. There is no contention that the petitioners were engaged in peddling.”
Establishes the core problem: the ordinance charges peddling but there is no actual evidence of peddling conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith and Farris were arrested and convicted in Lake City, Florida under a municipal affidavit charging that they sold and delivered goods from a moto…
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 Municipal Ordinance Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioners Robert Smith and Emmett Farris were arrested and convicted in Lake City, Florida, under an affidavit in the following language:
“Before me, the Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Lake City, Florida, a municipal corporation, personally appeared Arthur Hall, who first being duly sworn deposes' and says: That on the 21st day of November, A. D. 1933, within the incorporate limits of the City of Lake-City, Florida, the said Robert Smith and/or Emmett Farris did sell, and/or deliver, goods, wares and merchandise from a motor truck to merchants within the incorporate limits of Lake City, Florida, and which said motor truck of and from which goods, wares and merchandise were so sold and' delivered by the aforesaid defendants within the incorporate' limits of the City of Lake City, Florida, property of Farris *434& Company, a corporation. The said defendants were doing business within the City of Lake City, Florida, from a motor truck by the sale and delivery of its goods', wares and merchandise therefrom, and said defendants had no fixed location or place of business within the City of Lake City, Florida. The said Robert Smith and Emmett Farris, and/or Farris & Company had not at the time of the aforesaid sale procured or obtained a license authorizing the transaction of business within the City of Lake City, Florida, as required by the ordinances thereof; and against the peace and dignity of the said City of Lake City, Florida, a municipal corporation, contrary to the ordinances thereof in such cases made and provided.
“Arthur Hall.
“Sworn and subscribed to before me this the 1st day of February, A. D. 1934.
“W. Brantley Brannon,
Municipal Judge.”
The affidavit charges'an offense which could properly be the subject of a municipal ordinance. It charges in effect that the accused engaged in peddling. There is no contention that the petitioners were engaged in peddling.
The record shows, however, that the charge was not based on an ordinance imposing a license tax on peddling
The return shows that the ordinance, the violation of which was attempted to be charged against the petitioners, contained the following provisions, which it is contended the petitioners violated:
“Section 1. That each and every person, firm or corporation, or their agents, selling and/or delivering any goods, wares or merchandise, including bakery products and bottled beverages from any itinerant motor truck or other vehicle in the City of Lake City, Florida, whether an order *435therefor has been previously given by the buyer, and/or an order taken therefor previously by the seller thereof or not, shall pay to the City of Lake City, Florida, an occupational license tax therefor of the sum of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars per annum.”
There is no material difference between the law and facts involved in this case and the law and facts which were involved in the case of Duffin v. Tucker, in which the original opinion arid judgment were filed here on November 16, 1933, and opinion and judgment on rehearing were filed on March 17th, 1934, reported 153 Sou. 298.
On authority of the opinion and judgment in that case, the petitioners should be discharged from custody.
It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, and Terrell, J. J., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Petitioners in this case were not discharged for insufficiency per se of the ordinance of Lake City they were accused of violating, but because the facts of this case as disclosed by the record, clearly show that it is within the ruling of this Court made in Duffin v. Tucker, 113 Fla. 621, 153 Sou. Rep. 298.
In that case it was held that a municipality may not by fine and imprisonment enforce payment of a license tax as' attempted to be exacted against mere salesmen, who simply take orders in a city for goods to be afterward delivered to the customers after such orders are accepted by ofitside dealers doing business in another place in the State of Florida, and properly licensed where they maintain their principal places of business to do the business' they carry on.
Rehearing denied.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners in this case were not discharged for insufficiency per se of the ordinance of Lake City they were accused of violating, but because the facts of this case as disclosed by the record, clearly show that it is within the ruling of this Court made in Duffin v. Tucker, 113 Fla. 621, 153 Sou. Rep. 298.
In that case it was held that a municipality may not by fine and imprisonment enforce payment of a license tax as' attempted to be exacted against mere salesmen, who simply take orders in a city for goods to be afterward delivered to the customers after such orders are accepted by ofitside dealers doing business in another place in the State of Florida, and properly licensed where they maintain their principal places of business to do the business' they carry on.
Rehearing denied.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Langston v. Lundsford, 122 Fla. 813 (Fla. 1936)…r retail, but exempting salesmen for concerns doing business in some other state or county, was held invalid as attempting to confer extra-territorial jurisdiction on the city. See also Hamilton v. Collins, 114 Fla. 276, 154 So. 201; Farris v. Hall, 115 Fla. 433, 156 So. 114. The holding here is not in conflict as we see it, with the holdings in Conova v. Williams, 41 Fla. 509, 27 So. 30, or Afro-American, etc., Asso’n v. State, 61 Fla. 85, 54 So. 384. The evidence, in this case showed that the petitioner…
-
Whiddon v. Vickers, 127 Fla. 222 (Fla. 1937)…or other vehicles without maintaining a store or other place of business in the City of Jasper. The judgment should be reversed upon authority of the opinion and .judgment in the case of Duffin v. Tucker, 113 Fla. 621, 153 Sou. 298; Farris v. Hall, 115 Fla. 433, 156 Sou. 114, and Hamilton v. Collins, 114 Fla. 276, 154 Sou. 201. It is not necessary for us to discuss the law of the case further than it has been discussed in those opinions. [*225] For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed with directi…
-
Lane v. Williams, 160 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1948)…t 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 m…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Duffin v. Tucker, 113 Fla. 621 (Fla. 1933)