Brown v. Foley
| Decision Date | 15 April 1947 |
| Parties | BROWN v. FOLEY et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; George E. Holt judge.
Vincent C Giblin, of Miami, for appellant.
J. W Watson, Jr., and Franklin Parson, both of Miami, for appellees.
Gramling & Gramling, of Miami, amicus curiae.
Appellant filed a bill for a declaratory decree under Chapter 87, Fla.Stat.1941, F.S.A., testing the validity of a municipal ordinance of the City of Miami. The ordinance reads:
'* * * 'no female shall be employed for the purpose of, or permitted, to serve any liquor by the drink over any bar or counter.' * * *' (Italics supplied.)
Appellant, a woman alleges that she is a skilled bartender and that she will be deprived of valuable rights in the continuance of her trade if the above ordinance is valid; that subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance she entered into a contract (not shown to be in writing) with appellee Foley to work for her as a bartender in the City of Miami; that she is in doubt of her rights under the quoted ordinance.
The City moved to dismiss the bill because the contract of employment was not in writing by reason whereof she was not authorized to avail herself of the remedy chosen under this statute. The other challenge to the bill asserted the validity of the ordinance.
The chancellor dismissed the bill and on appeal we will decide the two questions presented by the motion to dismiss.
We hold the appellant is entitled to the remedy under Chapter 87 otherwise known as the Declaratory Decree statute. It is true her contract of employment was not in writing; nevertheless the instrument, of which she is in doubt, is the municipal ordinance which is expressly covered by the statute.
We also hold with appellant on the second question. In a large measure the City relies on our opinion, Nelson v. State ex rel. Gross, 26 So.2d 60, wherein we declined to hold the ordinance bad. For emphasis we might repeat that we declined to hold the ordinance bad as distinguished from holding it good. As was pointed out in that case, we had no female before the court contesting the issue. Then and there we served notice that in that event the question was still open.
In our opinion this ordinance is unreasonable as applied to this appellant. It recognizes that women may frequent bars and engage in every practice as men save and except that they shall not serve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. City of St. Paul
...of women in places where intoxicating liquor is sold at retail are elaborately considered. With the single exception of Brown v. Foley, 158 Fla. 734, 29 So.2d 870, the cases support the view that an ordinance such as the one here under consideration is valid. Referring to the Brown v. Foley......
-
Paterson Tavern & Grill Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Borough of Hawthorne
...601, 69 Cal.Rptr. 868 (Ct.App.1968); Henson v. City of Chicago, 415 Ill. 564, 114 N.E.2d 778 (1953); But cf. Brown v. Foley, 158 Fla. 734, 29 So.2d 870, 871 (1947); Loring, C.J., dissenting in Anderson v. City of St. Paul, 226 Minn. 186, 32 N.W.2d 538, 548--552 Though Goesaert has not been ......
-
City of Miami v. Keton
...Miami City Traffic Ordinance and the authority of the Miami Municipal courts to assume jurisdiction over traffic cases. Brown v. Foley, 1947, 158 Fla. 734, 29 So.2d 870, and Glackman v. Miami Beach, 1947, 159 Fla. 376, 31 So.2d 393. See also Rule 3.6, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Becau......
-
Coral Gates Properties v. Hodes
...warrant. He may pray for 'additional, alternative, coercive, subsequent or supplemental relief'.' In the case of Brown v. Foley, 158 Fla. 734, 29 So.2d 870, 871, a woman bartender alleged that after the enactment of an ordinance by the City of Miami prohibiting any female to be employed to ......
-
Restricting the freedom of contract: a fundamental prohibition.
...from working as bartenders on the grounds that such prohibitions were unreasonable and went "beyond any public need." Brown v. Foley, 158 Fla. 734, 735-36 (Fla. 1947) (holding a municipality is only empowered to implement "reasonable ordinances" and there was "no sound reason in law" to uph......