City of Coral Gables v. Seiferth
| Decision Date | 25 May 1956 |
| Citation | 87 So.2d 806 |
| Parties | CITY OF CORAL GABLES, Florida, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Florida, and W. T. Mcliwain, Appellants, v. R. J. SEIFERTH, Jr., individually and doing business as Rusty Plumbing Co., asole proprietorship, and Plumbing Industry Program, Inc., a Floridacorporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Edward L. Semple, Miami, for appellants.
Leo M. Alpert, Miami, for appellees.
The City of Coral Gables, the appellant here, installed a sanitary sewer system and passed an ordinance requiring all buildings to connect directly with the lateral sanitary sewers adjacent to said property immediately upon the lateral being available for such purpose. The ordinance provided the method of the connection to be made and that upon such connection being completed, any septic tank being theretofore used was to be discontinued and filled in with well tramped soil. Section 2 of the ordinance which brought on this controversy between the City and the appellee Plumbing Company provided that 'Any licensed septic tank contractor in the City of Coral Gables shall have the privilege of doing said work.' The lower court, in a suit filed by the Plumbing Company for injunction, held that Section 2 of the ordinance was in conflict with Chapter 469, Florida Statutes, 1953, F.S.A., which provides that 'any person engaged in or working at the business of plumbing in cities of seven thousand five hundred population or more in this state, either as master plumber or employing plumber or as journeyman plumber shall first receive a certificate thereof in accordance with the provisions of this chapter', and permanently enjoined the appellant City from enforcing said Section and denied attorney's fees to the attorney for the Plumbing Company.
It was stipulated in the lower court by the parties to this appeal that the work which the ordinance authorized any licensed septic tank contractor to do was 'plumbing' within the contemplation of said Chapter 469. We wish to observe that this question is not present in this appeal and we do not by our holding in this case, pass upon it, directly or indirectly.
Two questions are presented on this appeal. Appellant City argues that the ordinance is valid because the legislative act is unconstitutional. Appellee, on cross-assignment, argues the lower court erred in failing to allow attorney's fees to its attorney.
We dispose of the latter question first.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc.
...against the ordinance and in favor of the statute. City of Wilton Manors v. Starling, 121 So.2d 172 (Fla.App.1960), City of Coral Gables v. Seiferth, 87 So.2d 806 (Fla.1956). Section 16 A.5 D 'It shall be unlawful for any person to remove a housing unit from the market if the same will resu......
-
City of Wilton Manors v. Starling, 1401
...the operation of a state statute, the doubt is to be resolved against the ordinance and in favor of the statute. See City of Coral Gables v. Seiferth, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 806; Ex parte Wise, 141 Fla. 222, 192 So. 872; 23 Fla.Jur. Municipal Corporations, sec. Municipal ordinances in the field......
-
Jones v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 3423
...93 So.2d 60. The appellants allege that the Bair case is not controlling, and rely heavily upon the case of City of Coral Gables v. Seiferth, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 806. In addition, the appellants cite us to the case of Lasseter v. Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals, 1962, 19 Fla.Supp. 191......
-
City of Hollywood v. Bair
...His decree was rendered on the 7th day of February, 1956. On May 25th, 1956 this court handed down the opinion in City of Coral Gables v. Seiferth, 87 So.2d 806. The Coral Gables case, supra, I think presents in identical situation to that presented in this appeal and should be controlling ......