FRANK J. SHARP, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS SHARP VENDING MACHINE COMPANY, AND R. W. WOOD,
v.
W. C. LANIER, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF THE CITY OF ORLANDO, AND FRANK KAREL, AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF ORLANDO
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.
This case involves a dispute over the collection of taxes on coin-operated devices under a 1935 Florida Act. The appellants argued that the Act improperly allowed for double taxation. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint, relying on a prior, similar ruling.
The court held that the contention of the appellants was without merit, as the question had already been definitively determined against them in a prior case.
“The appeal brings for review an order dismissing bill of complaint which sought to enjoin and restrain W. C. Lanier as Tax Collector of the City of Orlando and Frank Karel as Chief of Police of said city from collecting or attempting to collect from each location operator certain taxes which were sought to be collected under the alleged authority of Section 5 of Chapter 17,257, Acts of 1935, the contention being that the provisions of the Act did not authorize the collection of the amount of the tax provided in- Section 5 thereof to be collected from the “location operator” and also a like amount from the “operator” each as defined in Section 3 of the Act.”
This quote describes the factual background and the core legal contention of the appellants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought to enjoin the Tax Collector and Chief of Police of Orlando from collecting taxes on coin-operated devices. They contended that Secti…
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.
The appeal brings for review an order dismissing bill of complaint which sought to enjoin and restrain W. C. Lanier as Tax Collector of the City of Orlando and Frank Karel as Chief of Police of said city from collecting or attempting to collect from each location operator certain taxes which were sought to be collected under the alleged authority of Section 5 of Chapter 17,257, Acts of 1935, the contention being that the provisions of the Act did not authorize the collection of the amount of the tax provided in- Section 5 thereof to be collected from the “location operator” and also a like amount from the “operator” each as defined in Section 3 of the Act.
The same question was presented in the case of State, ex rel. Cleve Baker, v. McCarthy, filed at this term of Court, and was definitely determined against the contention of the appellant here. So, the order appealed from should *252be affirmed on 'authority of the .opinion .and judgment in. that case.
On February 18th we entered an order granting a constitutional' writ in this case restraining the collection of the tax during the pendency of this appeal, that order to be effective upon appellants paying into the registry of the Circuit Court the amount or amounts of .money claimed by the City of Orlando by its said officers as additional location tax upon the said coin-operated devices and providing, that such funds should remain in the registry of the Circuit Court in lieu of the taxes claimed,by the City of Orlando until the final adjudication of the appeal, then to be disbursed in such manner as should be provided by order of this Court.
It is now ordered that if any moneys shall have been deposited in the office of’ the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Orange County pursuant to that order, such funds shall be delivered to the. City Clerk and Collector of Orlando, Florida, to be applied to the payment of the license tax involved.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and, Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunlop Tire & Rubber Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 369 (Fla. 1936)…decisions already given in the earlier cases. State, ex rel. Adams, v. Lee, 122 Fla. 639, 166 Sou. Rep. 249; State, ex rel. Lane Drug Stores, Inc., v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 582, 166 Sou. Rep. 227; State, ex rel. X-Cel Stores, Inc., v. Lee, 122 Fla. 685, 166 Sou. Rep. 586. See also: Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U. S. 517, 53 Sup. Ct. 48, 77 L. Ed. 929, 85 A. L. R. 699. The charge set forth in paragraph XIII of the Bill to the effect that the Comptroller and Attorney General have entered into an unlawful politica…