FREDRICK B. COOPER CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
EARNEST OVERSTREET, AS DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, JOHN A. GAUTIER, AS DADE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR, AND RAY E. GREEN, AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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.
A New Jersey corporation importing canned meats appealed dismissal of its action challenging a personal property tax assessment on imported goods stored in Florida. The court reversed, holding that a foreign corporation may challenge tax assessments affecting its constitutional rights under the Import-Export Clause even if not qualified to do business in the state.
A foreign corporation may maintain an action in Florida courts to adjudicate rights it acquired under the federal Constitution or laws in interstate commerce, even if it has not complied with Florida's foreign corporation registration statute.
“The statute, which requires a foreign corporation to comply with certain requirements before it shall be authorized to transact business in this state, does not preclude a foreign corporation, which has not complied with the statute, from seeking the adjudication of its rights in the courts of this state, which it acquired under the federal Constitution or laws in interstate traffic.”
This quote from Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Sorey is the controlling precedent that supports the holding that foreign corporations may challenge state actions affecting their federal constitutional rights regardless of registration status.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFredrick B. Cooper Co., a New Jersey corporation, imports canned meats from Europe and resells them in unbroken lots in their original packing cases. …
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 Import-Export Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff below appeals from a final decree dismissing with prejudice its complaint praying for a decree directing that the defendant tax assessor cancel and annul the 1959 Personal Property Assessment against the plaintiff’s Tangible Personal Property and that the other defendants be enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect any such tax.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff’s personal property which was the subject of assessment complained of, were imports within the meaning of Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting state or local tax on imports or exports. The defendants below by answer and motion, moved to dismiss this action on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of *745action, failure to comply with Section 613.01, Florida Statutes 1959, F.S.A., and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties hereto.
The plaintiff admitted that it is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the business of importing canned meats from Europe and reselling them in unbroken lots in the original packing cases in which they have arrived from overseas. These canned meats are consigned to plaintiff and stored in warehouses in Dade County from which they are shipped to customers after paying the United States import duties.
The defendant tax assessor, as of January 1, 1959, levied a tangible personal property tax assessment against these canned meats so stored. The plaintiff, prior to the assessment, filed with the tax assessor the 1959 storage tangible personal property tax return covering the said imported meats and claimed therein exemption from tax under the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2.
The sole issue submitted to the lower court was the right of plaintiff to maintain this action in view that it was a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in the state of Florida and not complying with Section 613.01, Florida Statutes 1959, F.S.A.
The Supreme Court of Florida has held in the case of Schwartz v. Frango Corp., Fla. 1950, 44 So.2d 292, that compliance with the said statute was not required where the action involved an interstate transaction, but in the case at bar the question is whether the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, not qualified to do business in Florida can maintain an action to adjudicate its rights in the courts of this state, which it acquired under the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of Florida in the case of Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Sorey, 97 Fla. 437, 121 So. 103, 104, held that:
“The statute, which requires a foreign corporation to comply with certain requirements before it shall be authorized to transact business in this state, does not preclude a foreign corporation, which has not complied with the statute, from seeking the adjudication of its rights in the courts of this state, which it acquired under the federal Constitution or laws in interstate traffic.”
The Court, therefore, committed error in dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Reversed.
PEARSON, Acting Chief Judge, and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corp., 155 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…isclose and claim exemptions, or have them considered waived for that tax year. While an advance claim of exemption could have been made with reference to the tax involved in the instant case (Cf. Frederick B. Cooper Co. v. Overstreet, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 744, and Overstreet v. Frederick B. Cooper Co., Fla. 1961, 134 So. 2d 225) the chancellor’s ruling that it was not indispensable is supportable on the theory relied upon by the appellees that these imports were immune from state ad valorem taxation by v…
-
Earnest Overstreet v. Frederick B. Cooper Co., Inc., 134 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1961)…erred to as defendants, are the Tax Assessor and Tax Collector of Dade County and the Comptroller of this State. They petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review that decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported in 126 So. 2d 744, asserting that said decision is in conflict with the decision of this Court in Irwin v. Gilson Realty Co., Inc., 1934, 117 Fla. 394, 158 So. 77. We issued the writ and have heard argument by the petitioners.' Respondent did not present argument be…
Authorities Cited
- Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Sorey, 97 Fla. 437 (Fla. 1929)