Mayo v. Texas Co.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1939 |
| Citation | 188 So. 206,137 Fla. 218 |
| Parties | MAYO, Commissioner of Agriculture, et al. v. TEXAS CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by the Texas Company against Nathan Mayo, as Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Florida, and others. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Decree reversed for further proceedings. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Paul D. Barns, Judge.
George Couper Gibbs, Atty. Gen., Tyrus A. Norwood, Asst. Atty. Gen and Wm. C. Pierce, of Tampa, for appellants.
Evans Mershon & Sawyer, M. L. Mershon, and W. O. Mehrtens, all of Miami, for appellee.
This case presents for determination the question of the constitutionality of Chapter 7905, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1919, being Sections 3956 to 3972, C.G.L., inclusive. The following portions pertinent to a decision of this case are Sections 3956, 3962 and 3970, C.G.L. viz:
'3956. Gasoline and oil to be inspected.--For the purpose of this Chapter all gasoline, naphtha, kerosene benzine, or other like products of petroleum under whatever name designated, used for illuminating, heating, cooking or power purposes, sold, offered or exposed for sale in this State, shall be subject to inspection and analysis as hereinafter provided. All manufacturers, wholesalers and jobbers, before selling or offering for sale in this State any gasoline, kerosene or other mineral oil for power, illuminating, cooking or heating purposes, shall file with the Commissioner of Agriculture an affidavit that they desire to do business in this State, and shall furnish the name, brand, or trade mark of the oil or oils, which they desire to sell, together with the name and address of the manufacturer thereof, and that such oil or oils are in conformity with the standard prescribed by the Commissioner of Agriculture. * * *
'3962. Duty of manufactures, etc., of gasoline and oil.--All such oils as hereinbefore enumerated and designated that are used or intended to be used for power, illuminating, cooking or heating purposes, when sold under a distinctive name that shall fall below the standard fixed by the Commissioner of Agriculture, are hereby declared to be illegal, and shall be subject to confiscation and sale by order of the Commissioner of Agriculture. It is hereby made the duty of all manufacturers, wholesalers and jobbers and distributors who sell, barter or exchange gasoline or other oils within this State, to post conspicuously at the place of delivery to the consumer a card or sign not smaller than 12×15 inches, setting forth in size type not smaller than one inch in height, in the English language, the degree of gravity of the product sold, offered or exposed for sale. * * *
It is claimed that Sections 6 and 14 of Chapter 7905, supra, being Sections 3962 and 3970 C.G.L., are each invalid upon the grounds of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power in the Commissioner of Agriculture; that the rules and regulations defining the fixing standards were not previously approved by the Commissioner of Agriculture as required by the above quoted statutes; that the statutes, supra, do not give the Commissioner of Agriculture power to make rules and regulations prohibiting the blending of different grades of gasoline, thereby bringing the finished product up to the standard requirements. The Commissioner of Agriculture, acting under Chapter 7905, supra, through his inspectors, seized 5500 gallons of 'Fire Chief' gasoline situated in a storage tank of the plaintiff below at Homestead, Florida. It was claimed that the gasoline seized had been adulterated with kerosene or some other high boiling petroleum product, and that the gasoline seized failed to meet the specifications prescribed by the Commissioner of Agriculture and that it would be a fraud to allow this gasoline to be sold within the State of Florida.
The Chancellor below held that the statute was unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable because: (a) the Commissioner of Agriculture had not been authorized to promulgate rules and regulations of a legislative character; (b) the Commissioner of Agriculture was performing a legitimate executive function by charging a violation of the rules and regulations; (c) the Commissioner of Agriculture attempted to decide and determine the fact of the violation of the rules which was a judicial function.
It will be observed that Section 1 of Chapter 7905, supra, being Section 3956, C.G.L., requires manufacturers, wholesalers and jobbers selling gasoline in Florida to file with the Commissioner of Agriculture an affidavit setting out that they desired to transact business in Florida, and in the affidavit should furnish the name, brand, or trade mark of the oil which they desired to sell, with the name and address of the manufacturer thereof; and it should be made further to appear that the oils desired to be sold on the part of the manufacturer in Florida should conform with the standards prescribed by the Commissioner of Agriculture. Likewise Section 6 of Chapter 7905, supra, being Section 3962, C.G.L., requires that when the oil is sold under a distinctive name and falls below the standards fixed by the Commissioner of Agriculture, the gasoline sold or offered for sale, below the standard so fixed, shall be declared an unlawful commodity and then it becomes the duty of the Commissioner of Agriculture to enter an order confiscating and to sell the illegal products so seized found to be below the standard prescribed by the rules and regulations of the Commissioner of Agriculture. The Act requires distributors of gasoline or oil in Florida to post in a conspicuous place where the gasoline or oil is delivered to the consumer a card or sign showing the degree of gravity of the product sold or offered for sale. Section 14 of Chapter 7905 Supra, being Section 3970 C.G.L., grants to the Commissioner of Agriculture power to make rules and regulations necessary to the proper enforcement of the Act and to define and fix the standards and specifications of oils and gases and that the oils and gases shall not be sold in Florida until their standards and specifications have been promulgated by the Commissioner of Agriculture.
This Court has held by a long line of decisions that the lawmaking power, in the enactment of a statute, contemplates a valid and constitutional Act and that the burden of proof is on the party asserting the unconstitutionality of an Act; and said Act is invalid and that the statute is in conflict with some designated provision of the Constitution. See Neisel v. Moran, 80 Fla. 98, 85 So. 346; State ex rel. Davis v. Rose, 97 Fla. 710, 122 So. 225. It is likewise the duty of this Court, in deference to the legislative department of the State government, to uphold a statute assailed because of its alleged unconstitutionality and not to hold an Act unconstitutional unless it is clearly made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coachman, 59 Fla. 130, 52 So. 377, 20 Ann.Cas. 1047; Campbell v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 53 Fla. 632, 43 So. 874; State v. Sullivan, 95 Fla. 191, 116 So. 255; Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 So. 716; State v. Rose, 97 Fla. 710, 122 So. 225; State v. Burns, 38 Fla. 367, 21 So. 290; Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Priest, 67 Fla. 370, 65 So. 282.
It cannot be overlooked that gasoline is highly inflammable and its unregulated sale can or may affect the health and welfare of the citizens of Florida. The Legislature has the power to enact laws that will protect the people from this inflammable and explosive commodity, and when the same is offered for sale, likewise it has the power in protecting the health and safety of the people by prescribing rules and regulations on its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaulden v. Kirk
...A.L.R. 1351; Haddock v. State, 141 Fla. 132, 192 So. 802; Klemm & Son v. City of Winter Haven, 141 Fla. 60, 192 So. 652; Mayo v. Texas Co., 137 Fla. 218, 188 So. 206; Snively Groves v. Mayo, 135 Fla. 300, 184 So. 839; Williams v. City of Jacksonville, 118 Fla. 671, 160 So. 15, 98 A.L.R. 513......
-
Moore v. Thompson
...to uphold a statute unless it is clearly made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional, Mayo v. Texas Co., 1939, 137 Fla. 218, 188 So. 206. I have given earnest and careful consideration to the contentions here made by appellant as to the invalidity of the st......
-
Sylvester v. Tindall
... ... Sweat, 125 Fla. 598, 170 So. 653; ... Williams v. Kelly, 133 Fla. 244, 182 So. 881; ... State v. Rose, 122 Fla. 413, 165 So. 347; Mayo ... v. Texas Co. 137 Fla. 218, 188 So. 206; State v ... Culbreath, 140 Fla. 634, 192 So. 814, and State ex ... rel. Young v. Duvall County, ... ...
-
McRae v. Robbins
...and boards for effectuating a declared policy of the law are numerous and generally are by the courts sustained. See Mayo v. Texas Co., 137 Fla. 218, 188 So. 206. the delegated power under a statute to make reasonable rules, orders and regulations can or may be sustained, it does not follow......