DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, ET AL.,
v.
J. M. LEE, AS COMPTROLLER
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.
Dunlop Tire & Rubber Company appealed a denial of an injunction against enforcement of Chapter 16848, Acts 1935, which imposed special license taxes on retail businesses. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Dunlop's constitutional challenge to the tax statute and holding that tire retailers remained subject to the new special taxes despite already being licensed under prior law.
The Court held that Chapter 16848 was constitutional as previously upheld, that tire retailers remain subject to the special license taxes imposed by that Act regardless of prior licensing under Chapter 12412, and that alleged selective enforcement does not provide grounds for enjoining the Act's enforcement against the appellant.
“The constitutionality of Chapter 16848, supra, has been heretofore upheld by this Court as to the special taxes imposed by Subdivision A and Class 1 of Subdivision B of Section'4 of the Act. The appellant's renewed challenge of the constitutionality of the Act, made in this case, is rejected on the authority of our decisions already given in the earlier cases.”
Establishes that the Court rejected the appellant's constitutional challenge based on prior precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDunlop Tire & Rubber Company, as owner and operator of retail tire stores, challenged Chapter 16848, Acts 1935, which imposed special license taxes on…
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 Equitable Interference cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree denying an injunction and dismissing a bill of complaint brought to have declared unenforceable against appellant the provisions of Chapter 16848, Acts 1935.
The constitutionality of Chapter 16848, supra, has been heretofore upheld by this Court as to the special taxes imposed by Subdivision A and Class 1 of Subdivision B of Section’4 of the Act. The appellant’s renewed challenge of the constitutionality of the Act, made in this case, is rejected on the authority of our 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 political conspiracy with certain “home owned” merchants in the State of Florida to relieve such home owned merchants from compliance with the provisions of Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, while enfoi-cing the Act against appellant and others similarly situated, even *371if sustainable in point of fact, affords no ground for equitable interference with the enforcement of the Act against appellant, so was properly stricken. The proper enforcement of the Act against “home owned” merchants so as to accomplish the equal protection óf the law as to their competitors, such as appellant,- is capable of being effectuated by mandamus brought in the name of appellant, or any other party interested. See: Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 104 Fla. 609, 141 Sou. Rep. 153.
The Circuit Court properly held that the business of appellant as the owner and operator of retail tire stores was subject to the special license taxes imposed by Chapter 16848, notwithstanding it was already licensed and paying taxes under Chapter 12412, Acts 1927,- Laws of Florida, specially applying to tire and tube dealers. See Section 17 of Chapter 16848, supra. Also see: Liggett Drug Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 359, 171 Sou. Rep. 326, decided at the present term.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason Lumber Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1936)…titutionality of Chapter 16848, Acts 1935, as to the taxes provided in Subdivision A and Class 1 of Subdivision B of Section 4 of the Act, was not erroneous for the reasons pointed out in our opinion in the case of Dunlop Tire and Rubber Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 369, 171 Sou. Rep. 331, and cases cited therein. Suits prosecuted under Chapter 8586, Acts of 1921, to •test the legality of taxes, assessments, or tolls, are maintainable .solely against the enforcement officer charged with [*374] the responsibility f…
-
Borrego v. Lee, 132 Fla. 49 (Fla. 1938)…tax imposed by law as a prerequisite to engaging in business in this State. Liggett Drug Co., et al., v. Lee, Comptroller, 126 Fla. 359, 171 So. 326; Pratt Food Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 530, 171 So. 330; Dunlop Tire and Rubber Co., v. Lee, Comptroller, 126 Fla. 369, 171 So. 351; and Mason Lumber Co. v. Lee, Comptroller, 126 Fla. 371, 171 So. 332, are relied on to support this contention. The factual situation involved in these cases brought the business taxed clearly within the term “store” as defined by „ Ch…
-
Lee v. Fed. Bake Shop, Inc., 142 Fla. 684 (Fla. 1940)…n’ other cases supporting our judgments therein. See Mason Lbr. Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 371, 171 So. 332; Lee v. Clover [*690] leaf Inc., 130 Fla. 435, 177 Sou. 722; Lee v. Hector Supply Co., 133 Fla. 95, 182 So. 613; Dunlop Tire and Rubber Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 369, 171 So. 332. The decree is reversed with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein' expressed. Terrell, C. J., Wi-iitfield, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur. Brown, J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- Louis K. Liggett Co. v. LEE, 288 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1933)
- State v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1935)
- Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Amos, 104 Fla. 609 (Fla. 1932)
- State v. Carswell, 122 Fla. 639 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. Lee, 122 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1936)
- Liggett Drug Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 359 (Fla. 1936)
- Sharp v. Lanier, 123 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1936)