H.w. Metcalf Co. v. Martin

• Decision Date: 20 November 1907
• Citation: 54 Fla. 531,45 So. 463
• Parties: H. W. METCALF CO. v. MARTIN, Tax Collector.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

45 So. 463

54 Fla. 531

H. W. METCALF CO. v. MARTIN, Tax Collector.

Florida Supreme Court

November 20, 1907

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Minor S Jones, Judge.

Bill by the H. W. Metcalf Company against W. E. Martin, tax collector. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A court of equity should not entertain a bill for an injunction against a tax collector who threatens to seize and sell personal property, except in rare cases, where the property is peculiarly valuable and cannot be compensated adequately in damages. This is true, even if the officer is acting without lawful authority, as such seizure is a mere trespass remediable by action at law.

Where an injunction is prayed on the ground of irreparable injury the bill of complaint should allege facts to enable the court to determine whether the injury will be irreparable. A mere general allegation that the injury will be irreparable is not sufficient. When the facts alleged do not show that irreparable injury will be sustained, an injunction should not be granted.

Where it is apparent to an appellate court that a bill of complaint does not state a case cognizable in a court of equity, it is the duty of the court to notice the defect, even though the question of equitable jurisdiction is not presented in the pleading or otherwise called to the attention of the trial or appellate court.

Allegations that complainant's business of selling liquor in a particular building will be entirely broken up and destroyed and that the barroom fixtures can only be replaced at great cost and by ordering from a great distance and after long delay, and that the same are absolutely essential to the business, do not show an injury that, if sustained, cannot be fully compensated in damages by an action at law, and are not sufficient to support an injunction on the ground of irreparable injury.

Where a bill of complaint prays for an injunction, and no facts are alleged upon which injunctional or other equitable relief should be granted, the bill of complaint should be dismissed.

COUNSEL

L. G. Starbuck, for appellant.

Beggs & Palmer, for appellee.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The appellant filed a bill in equity in the circuit court for Orange county, alleging in brief that it is engaged in the sale of liquors in one place of business, but that the tax collector demands a license tax for two places of business, because liquor is sold by complainant in two separate rooms not directly and immediately connected by any means of personal ingress and egress from one to the other; that because of the refusal of complainant to pay two license taxes the tax collector has seized and threatens to sell one pool table and all bar fixtures used in one of the places to enforce the collection of said license tax; that complainant will suffer irreparable injury; that said bar fixtures can only be replaced at great cost, and by ordering from a great distance, and after long delay; and that the same are absolutely essential to the business. The prayer is for an injunction against the tax collector to prevent the removal and sale of said property and that complainant be decreed exempt from the payment of the additional license tax. An answer was filed, showing the sale of liquor at two separate and distinct places of business. Testimony was taken, and on the final hearing the bill of complaint was dismissed. The complainant appealed, and assigns as error the final decree dismissing the bill of complaint.

A court of equity should not entertain a bill for an injunction against a tax collector who threatens to...