Finlayson v. Conner, 32968

• Decision Date: 23 September 1964
• Docket Number: No. 32968,32968
• Citation: 167 So.2d 569
• Parties: E. H. FINLAYSON, doing business as E. H. Finlayson & Son, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Doyle CONNER, as Commissioner of Agriculture of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 569

167 So.2d 569

E. H. FINLAYSON, doing business as E. H. Finlayson & Son, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Doyle CONNER, as Commissioner of Agriculture of Florida, Appellee.

No. 32968.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 23, 1964.

T. David Burns, Tallahassee, for appellant.

James W. Kynes, Atty. Gen., Joseph C. Jacobs and Wilton R. Miller, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

O'CONNELL, Justice.

In an action for declaratory decree, the appellant, as plaintiff, sought to have Chapter 61-436, Laws of Florida 1961, declared invalid. The chancellor held the statute valid and this appeal followed.

Section 2, Chapter 61-436, amended those portions of Chapter 578, the 'Florida seed law,' F.S.A. § 578.01 et seq., which determine who shall be required to register as a seed dealer and the registration fee to be paid.

As amended by Chapter 61-436, Section 578.08(1) requires all persons dealing in sale of seed, except as provided in Section 578.08(4), to register as a seed dealer and pay an annual 'registration fee,' the amount thereof being based on gross receipts of the dealer during the preceding year. Section 578.08(4), as amended, reads as follows:

'The provisions of this act shall not apply to farmers who sell uncleaned, unprocessed, unpackaged and unlabeled seed, but shall apply to farmers who sell cleaned, processed, packaged and labeled seed in amounts in excess of five thousand dollars in any one year; provided that the first five thousand dollars worth of cleaned, processed, packaged and labeled seed of any farmer shall be exempted from the provisions of this act.'

The net effect of the above quoted section is to exempt from registration and payment of a 'registration fee' (1) all farmers who sell uncleaned, unpackaged and unlabeled seed, and (2) all farmers who in any year sell less than $5,000 of cleaned, processed, packaged and labeled seed.

The appellant, a farmer-dealer in seed, contends that Chapter 61-436 violates Sections 1 and 12, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, he presents two questions. First, he says the statute creates an illegal classification between sellers of seed, and second, that it imposes an illegal tax on gross receipts.

We will treat these questions in the order stated.

Section 578.08(4) creates several classifications. First, it classifies farmers according to whether they sell seed that has not been cleaned, packaged, etc., and seed that has been cleaned, packaged, etc. It exempts the former group from its provisions while requiring compliance by the latter. Second, it classifies farmers who sell seed that has been cleaned, processed, etc., according to the gross receipts received from sale of seed, exempting the small seller and requiring compliance by the larger seller. Appellant argues that these classifications create a class within a class and are illegal. He does not argue that farmers may not be the subject of a classification.

This Court is committed to the rule that a classification will be upheld, and will not be held to be a violation of equal protection of the laws, if there is a just, fair and practical basis for the classification, and it is based on a real difference which is reasonably related to the subject and purpose of the regulation. If there is a reasonable and practical ground of classification for legislative regulations under the police power, it should be upheld even though another classification or no classification would appear more reasonable. Numerous cases stating these principle are cited in 6 Fla.Jur. Constitutional Law Section 304.

The question for decision is whether the classifications extablished in the statute rest on some fair and practical basis, and are based on some real differences reasonably related to its purpose. In short, is the discrimination practiced by the classifications based on reason, or can it be said to be arbitrary and capricious?

It is not disputed that the selling of seed affects the publie interest and use of the police power in regulating the sale thereof is justified. The object of the 'Florida seed law' is to protect the public in the purchase of quality seed for agricultural and gardening purposes. It does this through the registering, inspecting and labeling requirements.

The trial court held, and we think correctly, that the classification, under which farmers selling uncleaned, unpackaged, etc., seed were exempted from the requirements of the statute while those selling cleaned, packaged, etc., seed were not, is reasonable.

As the chancellor noted, many uncleaned seeds are sold for consumption by man and beast as food, which use has little or no relation to their quality for agricultural use. It is unnecessary to inspect or test these seed in order to accomplish the purpose of the seed law.

Moreover, if the uncleaned seed sold by the farmer go to a dealer who then sells it as cleaned, processed, packaged and labeled seed, the statute requires that such be done according to the stringent provisions of the seed law. It would be a useless, wasteful duplication to require the uncleaned seed to be inspected and tested in the hands of the farmer and require the same seed to go through the same procedure again in the hands of the dealer.

We find this classification to be reasonable.

The next classification for discussion is the one which exempted from the statute farmers who sell, in any one year, less than $5,000 in cleaned, processed, packaged and labeled seed.

In his brief, appellant points out that, as originally presented to the legislature, Chapter 61-436 exempted farmers who sold less than $1,000 of seed, either cleaned or uncleaned. Appellant admits that forceful argument could be made in support of this classification 'because the farmer in such category is not engaged in the business of growing agricultural or vegetable seed as an occupation.'

We fail to see the distinction in principle between the exemption of farmers who sell $1,000 and those who sell $5,000 of seed. The difference is only one of degree. If the former classification could be validly drawn by the legislature we think it could adopt the latter one without violating reason.

Referring again to the final decree, we find that the chancellor, in upholding this classification and exemption, was of the opinion that in regulatory statutes of this nature the legislature must face practicality and determine whether the expense and effort involved in enforcing the regulations against the sellers of relatively small quantities of seed is justified when weighed against the protection afforded the public interest as affected by such sales.

The...