Lee v. Cloverleaf, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1937 |
| Citation | 130 Fla. 435,177 So. 722 |
| Parties | LEE v. CLOVERLEAF, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by the Cloverleaf, Inc., and others against J. M. Lee, as comptroller of the state of Florida. Decree for complainant and defendant appeals.
Affirmed except as to surplusage therein contained. Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; J. B. Johnson Judge.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter and W. P. Allen, Asst Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Thomas B. Adams, of Jacksonville, for appellees.
Stockton, Ulmer & Murchison, of Jacksonville, as amici curiae.
This appeal is from a final decree permanently restraining the comptroller from enforcing the provisions of chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, against the appellees on the theory that said act had no application to restaurants, cafés, cafeterias, lunch or sandwich stands, or counters where cigars and cigarettes are also sold. The bill of complaint alleges that appellees are engaged in these businesses.
Several questions are urged for adjudication, but they may all by comprehended in the single question of whether or not 'restaurants, cafés, cafeterias, lunch or sandwich stands or counters, including or covering the sale of cigars and cigarettes' were embraced in the term 'store' as defined by chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, and made subject to the privilege taxes imposed thereby.
This question is resolved by a consideration of the title and definition of the term 'store' as used in section 2 of said act. Chapter 16848, Acts 1935, is better known as the Chain Store Tax Act and the pertinent part of the title is as follows:
'An Act to Provide for the Relief of the Public Free Schools of the State of Florida by Raising Revenue for the County School Fund by Levying and Imposing a Tax Upon the Privilege of Operating a Store or Stores Within this State, to classify Such Stores for the Purpose of Such Taxation and of Graduating the Tax in Accordance With the Number of Stores Operated Under a Single Ownership, Management of Control.'
The Legislature may make the title to an act as comprehensive or as restrictive as it chooses. State ex rel. Davis v. Love, 99 Fla. 333, 126 So. 374; State ex rel. Crump v. Sullivan, 99 Fla. 1070, 128 So. 478. In the title quoted, the privilege tax in question was limited to a 'store or stores' and cannot be construed as extending to any other instrumentality. Section 2 defines the word 'store' as follows:
'(g) The term 'store' as used in this Act shall be construed to mean and include any store or stores of any mercantile establishment or establishments whether the same be stationary or movable by means of wheels or otherwise which are owned, operated, maintained or controlled by the same person, firm, corporation, copartnership or association, either domestic or foreign in which goods, wares or merchandise of any kind are sold or offered to be sold ar retail.'
Considering the title and the definition of the word 'store' as quoted and used in the act, it would be difficult to enunciate in clearer language that the tax brought in question was limited to a store or stores of any mercantile establishment or establishments owned by the same person or corporation and selling at retail. Such being the scope of the act, other terms defined therein, such as 'person,' 'sale,' 'retail sale,' 'business,' 'retailer,' 'gross receipts,' and 'chain' or 'chain stores' are limiting words relating only to the primary subject taxed.
We find nothing in the title or body of the act so quoted to indicate that the Legislature intended to embrace restaurants, cafés, cafeterias, lunch or sandwich stands or counters, including or covering the sale of cigars and cigarettes, in the terms 'store' or 'mercantile establishment' and certainly the very nature of the business conducted by them, the special taxes imposed on them, and other circumstances not necessary to relate would exclude them from the terms of the act.
The sale of cigars and cigarettes is a mere incident to the operation of the restaurant, café, or cafeteria business and is subject to a special tobacco tax regardless of where sold. Restaurants, cafés, and cafeterias or public eating places are lacking in every prerequisite of a mercantile establishment or store where goods are manufactured or dispensed at retail. They involved so many elements not concomitant to a retail store that we can conceive of no theory on which they could be classed as such. City and County of San Francisco v. Larson, 165 Cal. 179, 131 P....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchanan v. State, A-30
...156 So. 396), and that the Legislature may make the title to an act as comprehensive or as restrictive as it chooses (Lee v. Cloverleaf, Inc., 130 Fla. 435, 177 So. 722). Applying these principles to the 1951 and 1953 acts in question, we believe that the Legislature was duly put on notice ......
-
Lee v. Jacksonville Gas Co.
...Fla. 49, 180 So. 343; DeLuxe Package House v. Lee, 132 Fla. 54, 180 So. 345; Weiss v. Lee, 132 Fla. 56, 180 So. 345; Lee v. Cloverleaf, Inc., 130 Fla. 435, 177 So. 722; Lee v. Holsum-Miami Corporation, 130 Fla. 440, So. 724; Liggett Drug Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 359, 171 So. 326; Toxaway Hotel ......
-
Lee v. Smith
... ... in the State of Florida?' ... Counsel ... for petitioner cite Lee v. Federal Bake Shop, Inc., ... Fla., 196 So. 185; Lee v. Hector Supply Co., ... 133 Fla. 95, 182 So. 613; Lee v. Jacksonville Gas ... Co., 138 Fla. 890, 190 So. 800; ... construed to be a store within the meaning of section 2, ... Subsection (g) of Chapter 16848, supra, and Lee v ... Cloverleaf, Inc., 130 Fla. 435, 177 So. 722. See also ... Lee v. Jacksonville Gas Co., 138 Fla. 890, 190 So ... 800, Lee v. Hector Supply Co., 133 Fla. 95, ... ...
-
City Drug Co. v. Lee
... ... operated to be subject to the tax and also within the purview ... of our opinion and judgment in the case of Lee v ... Cloverleaf, Inc., 130 Fla. 435, 177 So. 722, in which we ... held that the sale of cigars and cigarettes as shown to have ... been conducted in that case was ... ...