McRae v. Robbins
| Decision Date | 10 July 1942 |
| Citation | 9 So.2d 284,151 Fla. 109 |
| Parties | McRAE et al. v. ROBBINS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; W. May Walker Judge.
Messer & Willis, of Tallahassee, for appellants.
John Marshall Green, of Ocala, LeRoy Collins and Guyte P. McCord Jr., both of Tallahassee, and McKay, Macfarlane, Jackson & Ferguson and Whitaker Brothers, all of Tampa, for appellees.
Challenged by this appeal is a final decree entered by the Circuit Court of Leon County, Florida, sustaining the constitutionality of Chapter 20425, Acts of 1941, Laws of Florida, relating to the occupation of barbering and the operation of barber shops. The Act regulates the minimum prices to be charged for barber services and the hours of operation of barber shops. It authorizes the Barbers' Sanitary Commission to adopt and enforce reasonable rules, regulations and orders necessary to carry out the several provisions of the Act. The power is given to the Barbers' Sanitary Commission to grant and renew a barber's certificate and to revoke or suspend for lawful reasons a certificate previously granted. It is asserted that the several provisions of the Act can or may be sustained under the police power of the Constitution, but no contention is made as to the applicability of the provisions of Section 30 of Article 16 of the Florida Constitution.
Section 1 of the Act is a legislative finding that the occupation of barbering and the operation of barber shops are affected with a public interest; that it is necessary in promoting and conserving competitive salutary and sanitary practices among barbers and barber shops that reasonable minimum charges should prevail for barber services in barber shops, and also that reasonable opening and closing hours should prevail; and in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people Chapter 20425, supra, was by the Legislature enacted.
One of the questions presented for adjudication is: Do the provisions of Chapter 20425, Acts of 1941, Laws of Florida, empowering the Barbers' Sanitary Commission to fix minimum prices to be charged by barbers for their services violate the provisions of Sections 1 and 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Florida, as an unreasonable restraint of the freedom of personal liberty, contract and property, as a denial of the equal protection of the law and as depriving a person of his liberty and property without due process of law?
The Barbers' Sanitary Commission, by the terms of the Act, when brought to its attention by a petition of 66 2/3% of the registered barbers of a county, that unfair and unreasonable economic practices prevail among the barbers or barber shops tending to make insecure the economic status of barbers or that the hours of operation are unreasonable and make difficult or inadequate sanitary inspection affecting the health and efficiency of the barbers or the health and safety of the patrons or customers of the shops, and when these conditions are found to exist, then the Commission, after due notice and hearing, shall be authorized to promulgate scales of reasonable minimum prices that shall obtain and prevail and fix reasonable hours for opening and closing of shops in said county, or it may prescribe zones in a county with appropriate varying prices in said zone of a county and hours for the opening and closing of shops, provided such orders, rules and regulations are reasonable and otherwise legal in their adoption and in their operation.
The Legislature determined that the occupation of barbering and the operation of barber shops were 'affected with a public interest'. Section 30 of Article 16 of the Florida Constitution grants the Legislature full power to enact laws designed for the correction of abuses and to prevent unjust discrimination and excessive charges by persons and corporations engaged as common carriers in transporting persons and property, 'or performing other services of a public nature * * *.' Prices of gas, water and electricity have been regulated by acts enacted under this provision of the Florida Constitution. See City of Tampa v. Tampa Water Works Co., 45 Fla. 600, 34 So. 631; Gainesville Gas & Elec. Power Co. v. Gainesville, 63 Fla. 425, 58 So. 785; State ex rel. Ellis v. Tampa Water Works Co., 56 Fla. 858, 47 So. 358, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 183; Id., 57 Fla. 533, 48 So. 639, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 680; State ex rel. Railroad Com'rs v. Southern Tel. & Const. Co., 65 Fla. 270, 61 So. 506; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Tampa, 199 U.S. 241, 26 S.Ct. 23, 50 L.Ed. 170. Section 30 of Article 16 of the Florida Constitution grants power to the Legislature to enact laws to correct abuses, prevent unjust discrimination and excessive charges in businesses operated by persons and corporations 'performing other services of a public nature.'
The constitutionality of price fixing measures has been considered and sustained by this court. See Miami Home Milk Producers Ass'n v. Milk Control Board, 124 Fla. 797, 169 So. 541; Bon Ton Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., v. Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Bd., 128 Fla. 533, 176 So. 55; Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc., v. Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Bd., 128 Fla. 408, 174 So. 829; Bristol-Myers Co. v, Webb's Cut-Rate Drug Co., Inc., 137 Fla. 508, 188 So. 91; Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd., 134 Fla. 1, 183 So. 759, 119 A.L.R. 956; Mayo v. Polk Co., 124 Fla. 534, 169 So. 41. Likewise see: 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 690, pages 1445, 1446; 11 Am.Jur. par. 282, pages 1042-3; Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940, 89 A.L.R. 1469; Old Dearborn Distrib. Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp., 299 U.S. 183, 57 S.Ct. 139, 81 L.Ed. 109, 106 A.L.R. 1476; West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703, 108 A.L.R. 1330; United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 307 U.S. 533, 59 S.Ct. 993, 83 L.Ed. 1446; Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Co., 309 U.S. 310, 60 S.Ct. 517, 84 L.Ed. 774; Sunshine Anthracite Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 60 S.Ct. 907, 84 L.Ed. 1263; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855, 80 L.Ed. 1160; Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236, 61 S.Ct. 862, 85 L.Ed. 1305, 133 A.L.R. 1500; Duckworth v. Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390, 62 S.Ct. 311, 86 L.Ed. 294, 138 A.L.R. 1144.
The phrase 'affected with a public interest' means that the occupation or industry when in operation affects the health, safety and welfare of the people and the public is interested to such an extent that reasonable laws can or may be enacted for its control and regulation. The extent to which an occupation or business may be regulated varies with different kinds of businesses. The Legislature may enact reasonable regulations for barber shops, beauty culture salons, fruit industries, hotels, drivers of automobiles, and similar businesses, on the theory that they 'are affected with a public interest'. See 16 C.J.S. pp. 1424-1425, § 672.
Whether or not the Barbers' Sanitary Commission has the power, 'when considering the economic status of the barber', to regulate the individual compensation that shall be made to the barber by the proprietors of the barber shop in which he is employed is not presented on this record.
Counsel for appellant cite State ex rel. Fulton v. Ives, 123 Fla. 401, 167 So. 394. This decision construes Chapter 14650, Acts of 1931, Laws of Florida, and the same was held unconstitutional. The unconstitutional features appearing in Chapter 14650, supra, were omitted from Chapter 20425, Acts of 1941, here involved. It is our conclusion that questions two and four posed for adjudication are each answered by the authorities, supra, adversely to the contention of counsel for appellants.
Question five is viz: Assuming that Chapter 20425, Acts of 1941, Laws of Florida, is not unconstitutional ipso jure, is the order of the Barbers' Sanitary Commission, complained of in this cause, an unlawful attempt to exercise the powers lawfully conferred by said Chapter 20425?
The prices promulgated by the Barbers' Sanitary Commission applicable to Leon County are viz:
Counsel point out that the shop operated by the two appellants consists of three chairs, with the appellants each operating a chair and they employ an additional barber; that their rents, utility bills and other overhead expenses are kept at a minimum and that they can operate at a profit and charge forty cents for a haircut and reduce other amounts for the services fixed by the order of the Commission, and that all sanitary rules can be observed and the health, safety and welfare of the public promoted; that the plaintiffs have customers who cannot patronize their shops if the hours fixed by the order are observed; and that the several provisions of the order of the Commission are each unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory.
Section 5 of the Act authorizes the Commission to adopt and enforce rules, regulations and orders necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. It has the power by the Act, by an appropriate order, to fix the reasonable minimum prices applicable to a county or zone, as well as the opening and closing hours of barber shops. These orders can be rescinded or modified, or substitute orders promulgated. Statutes delegating rule making and enforcement powers to officers 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. While the delegated power under a statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Bd. of Dentistry
...62 Fla. 315, 57 So. 175; State ex rel. Railroad Com'rs. v. Southern Telephone & Construction Co., 65 Fla. 270, 61 So. 506; McRae v. Robbins, 151 Fla. 109, 9 So.2d 284. And there must be some basis in a statute for the exercise of jurisdiction and power involved in making an order. State ex ......
-
Irvine v. Duval County Planning Com'n
...by the agency must be made by the agency and must support the order entered by the agency. As the Supreme Court stated in McRae v. Robbins, 9 So.2d 284, 291 (Fla.1942): The evidence adduced at hearings in fixing rates and hours of service must be taken down and made a part of the record of ......
-
State Board of Barber Examiners v. Cloud
... ... McMasters, 1939, 204 Minn. 438, 283 ... N.W. 767; Arnold v. Board of Barber Examiners, 1941, ... 45 N.M. 57, 109 P.2d 779; McRae v. Robbins, 1942, ... Fla., 9 So.2d 284 ... Ordinances ... held unconstitutional: City of Mobile v. Rouse, ... 1937, 233 ... ...
-
Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission v. Cedar Rapids Community School Dist., in Linn County
...involved in that case 'could well have (been) more detailed and certain.' Along this line is this statement from McRae v. Robbins, 151 Fla. 109, 9 So.2d 284, 290--291: 'Where a statutory board, commission or officer or other tribunal or agency is lawfully given administrative and limited qu......