LENFESTEY SUPPLY COMPANY, ET AL.,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA, ET AL.
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.
Lenfestey Supply Company challenged the validity of Tampa's new charter adopted under Chapter 13455 of the 1927 Florida Acts and challenged city ordinance 689-A regarding business license rates and discretionary powers. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that the Legislature had authority to enact the charter authorization statute, the ordinance's license rates complied with state law, and the board's discretionary powers did not violate the constitution.
The court held that the Legislature had authority to enact Chapter 13455 and the City properly followed its provisions in adopting the new charter. The ordinance's license rates complied with state law as established in prior precedent. The ordinance's grant of discretionary power to the board to alter licenses did not violate constitutional or statutory requirements, particularly where appellants were not shown to be adversely affected.
“It was competent for the Legislature to enact Chapter 13455 and, for all the record discloses, the City has observed its provisions to the letter in the preparation and adoption of the charter brought in question.”
Establishes that the Legislature had authority to enact the charter authorization statute and the City properly followed its provisions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Tampa adopted a new charter under authority of Chapter 13455, Acts of 1927, which authorized the city to change its charter form by refere…
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.
This appeal is from a final decree dismissing an amended bill of complaint for want of equity and for other reasons. Three questions are urged for reversal but they all turn on the validity of Chapter 13455, Acts of 1927, as applied to this case.
Chapter 13455 is a special Act authorizing the City of Tampa to change the form of its charter by referendum without in any manner affecting the city’s powers. The provisions of the Act were followed and a new charter was adopted which appellant contends is invalid. He relies on Pursley v. City of Ft. Myers, 87 Fla. 428, 100 So. 366, to support his contention.
The latter case has been examined but we find no analogy whatever in the facts of that case and those of the case at bar. It was competent for the Legislature to enact Chapter 13455 and, for all the record discloses, the City has observed its provisions to the letter in the preparation and adoption of the charter brought in question.
It is next contended that ordinance 689-A of the City is violative of Section 24, Article III, of the Constitution and Chapter 18011, Acts of 1937, in that some of the license rates allowed are larger than 50 per cent of the State license tax. This question is answered by State ex rel. Holloway v. Keller, Tax Collector, 133 Fla. 335, 182 So. 779, contrary to the contention of appellant.
It is also contended that said ordinance is discriminatory in its operation in that Section 5 authorizes the board of representatives to alter, change, increase, decrease or revoke any license provided for therein and that it is attempting to exercise such power without the approval of the mayor.
*612There is no merit in this contention. An inspection of the ordinance discloses that it provides that the “right” of the board of representatives to change, alter, etc., any license shall not be abridged. In other words, if the “right” does not exist, it cannot be exercised and if it exists, it cannot be affected; besides this, appellants are not shown, to be affected in any way by this provision.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Justice Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pursley v. City of Fort Myers, 87 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1924)
- State v. Keller, 133 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1938)