City of Miami v. Kichinko
Decision Date | 29 June 1945 |
Citation | 22 So.2d 627,156 Fla. 128 |
Parties | CITY OF MIAMI v. KICHINKO. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 17, 1945.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Ross Williams Judge.
J. W Watson, Jr., of Miami, for appellant.
Hoffman & Durant, Carl T. Hoffman, N. J. Durant, and Sam C Matthews, all of Miami, for appellee.
Bill of complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida seeking a declaratory judgment under chapter 21820, Acts of 1943, F.S.A. § 87.01 et seq., to determine the validity or non-validity of section 3 of Ordinance 2161 of the City of Miami adopted August 16th, 1939.
Motion to dismiss was properly denied.
Section 3 of the ordinance which is under attack here is as follows:
licenses, until an increase in population warrants the same, and to limit such increases according to a fixed ratio of population increase. When a licensee who has or holds, or who hereafter has or holds, a license for the sale of liquor at wholesale or retail, shall have made a bona fide sale of the business which he, or it, is so licensed to conduct, he, or it, may obtain a transfer of such license to the purchase of said business, provided the purchase shall comply with the laws of the State of Florida in reference to his qualifications as such purchaser, and when such license is so transferred the purchaser shall become vested with the right, and privilege of the renewal of said license, notwithstanding the provisions of the first two paragraphs of this Section, and shall likewise become possessed with all the rights and privileges accorded those now licensed to sell liquor at wholesale and retail within the City of Miami, Florida. Provided, however, that this Ordinance shall not prohibit the issuance of licenses for the sale of liquor to be consumed on or off the premises; in
'(a) Hotels with fifty (50) or more guest rooms, which hotel may contain places of business for the sale of liquor to be consumed on the premises and where such sales are conducted in an orderly manner, and where such sale of liquors is strictly incidental to the principal use as a hotel, and where there are no signs of any kind exhibited or displayed to the outside, denoting that intoxicating beverages are obtainable therein, and where the room for the sale of intoxicating liquors as conducted does not open upon any street or sidewalk.
'(b) In bona fide restaurants and dining rooms where the sale of liquor is entirely incidental to the main business of selling food, and where no sign or display is made to the outside indicating that alcoholic beverages are obtainable therein, and where such beverages are sold only to persons seated where food is habitually sold and consumed, and where such restaurant has a space of at least 4,000 square feet occupied by and exclusively devoted to the use of seating customers at tables, and where the chairs at tables, within said space, number at least 200.
'(c) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the sale of beer and wine at retail.'
The matter came on for hearing before the Circuit Court, pursuant to order denying motion to dismiss, on motion of the respondent City for final decree on the petition or bill of complaint, the respondent therein declining to plead further. Whereupon Circuit Judge Williams filed his opinion and judgment as follows:
'After the repeal of the ill-fated prohibition amendment, article 19 was added to the Florida Constitution by a vote of the people of Florida at the general election in 1934. Section two (2) of article 19 confided to the legislature the power to enact laws to carry into effect the repeal amendment.
'Pursuant to the Constitutional power, the legislature enacted into law, in 1935, what is known as the State Beverage Act. This Act (chapters 561 and 562, F.S.A.) is a taxing as well as a regulatory statute intended to have uniform operation throughtout the State. Sproul, Tax Collector, v. State ex rel. Smith, Fla., 16 So.2d 109.
'This act is designed to cover the field of both regulation and taxation. Langston v. Lundsford, 122 Fla. 813, 165 So. 898.
'In 1939 the City Commission of Miami adopted ordinance number 2161, section three (3) of which purports to limit the number of liquor licenses according to population.
'It is elementary that municipalities have or can possess only such power as is conferred by expressed or implied provisions of law. Malone v. City of Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 So. 922, Ann.Cas.1916D, 208.
'The State Beverage Act gives to municipalities the power to create zones wherein intoxicating liquor may not be sold. The Act also provides as follows:
"Nothing in the beverage...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Hewlett v. Womach
... ... Ruel N. Womach (substituted for Herschel Bennett), Commissioner of Revenue of the City of Springfield, Missouri No. 39828 Supreme Court of Missouri September 9, 1946 ... v ... Garland, 45 N.E.2d 545, 316 Ill.App. 635; City of ... Miami v. Kichinko, 22 So.2d 627; Brackman's Inc ... v. City of Huntington, 27 S.E.2d 71. (5) Section ... ...
-
State ex rel. Limpus v. Newell
...upon the same subject. Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction of Brevard County, 159 Fla. 869, 33 So.2d 54; City of Miami v. Kichinko, 156 Fla. 128, 22 So.2d 627; American Bakeries Co. v. City of Haines City, 131 Fla. 790, 180 So. 524; State ex rel. First Savings & Trust Co. of Tampa......
-
State ex rel. Dixie Inn, Inc. v. City of Miami
...par. 108. Our previous holdings are cited and relied upon as applicable to the controversy here presented and are viz: City of Miami v. Kitchinko, Fla., 22 So.2d 627; Mechlow v. Vocelle, Fla., 22 So.2d 631; State rel. Williams v. City of Miami, Fla., 22 So.2d 505; Singer v. Scarborough, Fla......
-
City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Pickin' Chicken of Lincoln Road, Inc., 60-470
...of Miami v. Fuller, 136 Fla. 788, 187 So. 148, 150.' See also Singer v. Scarborough, 155 Fla. 357, 20 So.2d 126; City of Miami v. Kichinko, 156 Fla. 128, 22 So.2d 627; State ex rel. Dixie Inn v. City of Miami, 156 Fla. 784, 24 So.2d 705, 163 A.L.R. 577; State ex rel. Anthony Distributors v.......