Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Bd.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1937
• Citation: 174 So. 829,128 Fla. 408
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: ECONOMY CASH & CARRY CLEANERS, Inc., et al. COLEMAN, Sheriff v. CLEANING, DYEING & PRESSING BOARD et al. COLEMAN, Sheriff v. STATE ex rel. LICHTENSTEIN.

174 So. 829

128 Fla. 408

ECONOMY CASH & CARRY CLEANERS, Inc., et al. COLEMAN, Sheriff v. CLEANING, DYEING & PRESSING BOARD et al. COLEMAN, Sheriff v. STATE ex rel. LICHTENSTEIN.

Florida Supreme Court

June 4, 1937

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, Judge.

Suit by the Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Board, etc., and others against the Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc., and others for an injunction to restrain defendants from charging and advertising charges for their services less than the schedule of prices set forth in an agreement alleged to have been entered into between certain of the plaintiffs and certain of the defendants and set forth in an order of the board, and habeas corpus proceedings by the State, on the relation of A E. Lichtenstein, against D. C. Coleman, as sheriff of Dade county, Fla. From an order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the bill in the injunction suit, the defendants appeal, and to review an order of release in the habeas corpus proceeding, D. C. Coleman, as sheriff, brings error; the appeals in each case being consolidated for hearing on stipulation of the parties.

Order in the injunction suit denying the motions to dismiss affirmed and order discharging petitioner in the habeas corpus proceedings affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Worth W. Trammell, judge.

COUNSEL

William K. Whitfield, of Tallahassee, and E. F. P. Brigham, of Miami for appellants in chancery cause, and for appellee in habeas corpus case.

Walsh Beckham & Ellis and William B. Farley, all of Miami, for appellees in chancery cause, and for appellant in habeas corpus case.

OPINION

R. H. ROWE, Circuit Judge.

The chancery cause above and the habeas corpus case above have been argued and considered together as both are closely related and grow out of an attempted enforcement of the provisions of chapter 16979, Acts 1935, in respect to price fixing. These causes will be handled together in one opinion.

Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Board, created by chapter 16979, Acts of the Florida Legislature of 1935, joined by many other plaintiffs who were engaged in the cleaning and dyeing and pressing business in Dade county, Fla., filed suit in the circuit court for Dade county, Fla., against Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc., and several others, praying for an injunction restraining the defendants from charging and advertising charges for their services less than the schedule of prices set forth in a certain agreement alleged to have been entered into between certain of the plaintiffs and certain of the defendants, and also set forth in an official order (No. 14) of said board. It is alleged that the agreement was signed by certain of the plaintiffs and certain of the defendants, and, for reasons set in the bill, is binding upon those plaintiffs (other than the board) and defendants who did not sign same. The purpose of the agreement, and of the order, was to maintain a schedule of minimum prices in the cleaning and dyeing business in the area in which Dade county was located, and prevent price cutting below such minimum prices. It is alleged that after the execution of the agreement it was delivered to the officials of the board, and that all parties to this suit (other than the board) were bound by the same, and that said board 'pursuant to legal procedure and due authority, thereafter proceeded to establish such prices as per legal order.' It is alleged that after such prices had been thus legally established and such agreement had been validly entered into the defendants 'proceeded to establish unlawful lower prices from those prescribed in such order and agreement, inserting large advertisements in the same issue of the Miami Herald * * * announcing that they would clean and press men's suits' for less than the schedule prices set forth in the agreement and order. It is alleged that said board has sought to avail itself of all legal remedies to enforce compliance with said order, and that criminal informations have been filed against violators of said order and that these informations are pending, and that defendants threaten to continue to violate said order. It is alleged that resort to a court of chancery is necessary in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits, irreparable injury, and other things not necessary to be enumerated. The agreement contains the following:

'We do likewise further agree to abide by and conform to the rules and regulations prescribed by the said Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Board of the State of Florida. We do further agree that in the event of the violation of this agreement, that in addition to any other legal remedies which may accrue for the violation of an agreement that we will further submit to an injunction without notice against any violation hereof.'

It is alleged that in the case of Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Board v. Bon Ton Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., et al. an order of said circuit court for Dade county, Fla., was entered restraining the defendants therein from violating the said agreement, and that said order, upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida, was affirmed. 176 So. 55. It is alleged, also, that plaintiffs (other than the board) are willing that the order of injunction prayed for shall apply to them also. The prayer of the bill is, among other things, that writ of injunction be issued restraining defendants from violating said agreement and order No. 14.

The various defendants filed motions to dismiss the bill containing various grounds, among them being that the agreement was invalid as being no contract at all, but a mere offer; that it is in restraint of trade, and created a trust and was therefore invalid under section 7953, C.G.L.; that said order was void because the board had no power to make such order. The motions to dismiss were denied, and from the order of denial appeal to this court was taken by the defendants.

In the hebeas corpus case above, it is shown that in the criminal court of record of Dade county, Fla., the county solicitor filed an information against A. E. Lichtenstein (or H. E. Litchenstein, though no point is made on the name) charging that the board did hold an investigation and hearing relating to the reasonable cash and carry price for the cleaning and pressing of men's woolen suits in the locality of Dade county, Fla., to protect the cleaning, dyeing, and pressing industry in the state of Florida; that after making such investigation said board, on the 29th day of May, 1936, did adopt and make a certain rule, regulation, and order to take effect on the 1st day of June, 1936, which said rule, regulation, and order did fix the minimum cash and carry price for the cleaning and pressing of men's woolen suits within Dade county, Fla., in the sum of 65 cents; that a copy of said order was mailed to the defendant Lichtenstein, and that thereafter he did, in violation of the order, press a man's woolen suit for 50 cents. The defendant was arrested, and he sued out writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that chapter 16979, Acts of 1935, upon which said prosecution was based, was unconstitutional and void in so far as it permitted the fixing of minimum prices for cleaning, dyeing, and pressing business; that the warrant for arrest was based upon rule No. 14 of said board, and that there is no valid or constitutional statute authorizing said board to fix minimum prices for said business; that the statute upon which the warrant of arrest is based violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and section 1 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution.

It was stipulated that order No. 14 of the board should be considered as filed in the case, but no facts or evidence upon which same was based is set forth or recited.

The petitioner was released from custody upon the ground that the attempt to regulate his business as to the price he must charge his customers is repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as sections 1 and 12 of the Florida State Constitution (Declaration of Rights), in that it impairs the liberty of contract, and is not a valid exercise of the police power; and that as criminal laws must be of uniform application throughout the state, and also, as legislative power is vested in the Legislature, the board cannot be vested with power to say what act relating to cleaning, dyeing, and pressing business shall constitute a...