Freeman v. Tittsworth
| Decision Date | 11 December 1936 |
| Parties | FREEMAN v. TITTSWORTH, Chief of Police. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Frank Freeman against R. G. Tittsworth, Chief of Police. From an adverse decree, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County L. L. Parks, judge.
S Sherman Weiss, of St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Ralph A. Marsicano and Worth & Bivens, all of Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, as plaintiff below, filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court in which he prayed that defendant, as chief of police of the city of Tampa, be restrained from requiring him to pay the license fee required by paragraph (b) of Ordinance 437-A, to engage in the business of auctioneer. An answer and a motion to dismiss the bill were filed and the latter was granted. This appeal is from that decree.
Ordinance 437-A is as follows:
It is contended that the city of Tampa was without authority to enact the foregoing ordinance, but that if it in fact had such power it has been exercised in an unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious manner, that Ordinance 437-A amounts to the taking of complainant's property without due process of law and denies him the equal protection of the law.
In response to the contention that the city of Tampa was without authority to enact Ordinance 437-A it is sufficient to say that the general powers granted to the city by section 3, chapter 7714, Sp. Acts 1917, section 56, chapter 14423, Sp. Acts 1929, and other provisions of the city charter not essential to enumerate or quote, amply warranted such an ordinance.
The other questions raised resolve themselves first into one of classification, the basis therefor being whether there is any sound reason for imposing a different license fee on the itinerant auctioneer from that imposed on the one who plies his trade at a fixed location or at an auction house. If he is of the latter class, he is required by paragraph (a) of the ordinance to pay a license fee of $250 per year and may conduct auction at other places in the city. If he is of the first class, he is required by paragraph (b) to pay a license fee of $50 per day for each day he conducts a sale.
The courts have upheld such classifications on the theory that the itinerant auctioneer or vendor comes and goes with the day, requires more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steinberg-Baum & Co. v. Countryman, STEINBERG-BAUM
...in Iowa City v. Newell, 1901, 115 Iowa 55, 87 N.W. 739 (fee of $50 a week from transient merchants upheld as a tax); Freeman v. Tittsworth, 1936, 126 Fla. 483, 171 So. 307 ($50 a day for itinerant auctioneers not unreasonable); Village of Minneota v. Martin, 1914, supra, 124 Minn. 498, 145 ......
-
O'connell v. Kontojohn
... ... Brown, 56 Fla. 377, ... 47 So. 834; Park v. Morgan, 64 Fla. 414, 60 So. 347; ... [179 So. 804] ... and Freeman v. Tittsworth, 126 Fla. 483, 171 So ... There ... were elements that entered into the decision of these cases ... that are not shown to ... ...
-
State Ex Rel. Lawson v. Woodruff
...special sales of damaged goods in the city. See State ex rel. Bonsteel v. Allen, 83 Fla. 214, 91 So. 104, 26 A.L.R. 735; Freeman v. Tittsworth, 126 Fla. 483, 171 So. 307. regulatory provisions of the ordinance, designed to make the ordinance effective, are not shown to be unreasonable or ar......
-
City of Miami v. I. C. Sales, Inc.
...municipal corporations, so will this statute economically regulate the number of these machines placed in operation.' In Freeman v. Tittsworth, 126 Fla. 483, 171 So. 307, in rejecting a contention that an occupational license tax in a certain amount imposed on auctioneers was unreasonable a......