Miami Home Milk Producers Ass'n v. Milk Control Bd.

• Decision Date: 16 July 1936
• Citation: 169 So. 541,124 Fla. 797
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: MIAMI HOME MILK PRODUCERS ASS'N v. MILK CONTROL BOARD.

169 So. 541

124 Fla. 797

MIAMI HOME MILK PRODUCERS ASS'N v. MILK CONTROL BOARD.

Florida Supreme Court

July 16, 1936

En Banc.

Suit by the Milk Control Board against the Miami Home Milk Producers Association to enjoin the violation of orders of board regulating the price of milk. From an adverse decree, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Worth W. Trammell, judge.

COUNSEL

McKay Dixon & De Jarnette, of Miami, for appellant.

Lilburn R. Railey and Walsh, Beckham & Ellis, all of Miami, Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter and John L. Graham Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

BROWN Justice.

The controlling question presented on this appeal is the constitutionality of chapter 17103 of the Laws of 1935, which legislative act established, or in effect continued, the Milk Control Board which had been created by a similar statute chapter 16078, adopted in 1933, the Board's existence under the present act to expire June 30, 1937.

The attack here made is centered on section 13, the price-fixing section of the act, which it is charged violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and certain similar clauses (sections 1 and 12) of the Declaration of Rights contained in our State Constitution.

This appeal is from a decree of the circuit court, in an injunction suit brought by the Milk Control Board, enjoining the defendant, appellant here, from violating certain orders of the board by selling, or continuing to sell and deliver, fresh fluid milk at a less price or on different terms or conditions than those fixed by the orders of said board. The defendant in its answer admitted the facts alleged in the bill, and based its defense upon a denial of the legal existence of the board and its power to make the orders which the defendant had violated. So there are here no disputed issues of fact which require discussion.

Section 1 of the act under review reads as follows:

'Section 1. Legislative finding: statement of policy.--This Act is enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State, and its purposes generally are to protect the public health and public welfare. It is hereby declared that unhealthful, unfair, unjust, destructive, demoralizing and uneconomic trade practices have been and are now carried on in the production, sale and distribution of milk and milk products in this State, whereby the dairy industry in the State and the constant supply of pure milk to inhabitants of the State is imperiled. That such conditions constitute a menace to the health, welfare and reasonable comfort of the inhabitants of the State. That in order to protect the well-being of our citizens and promote the public welfare and in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race, the production, transportation, manufacture, storage, distribution and sale of milk in the State of Florida is hereby declared to be a business affecting the public health and interest. That the production and distribution of milk is a paramount industry upon which the prosperity of the State in large measure depends. That the present acute economic emergency, being in part the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity between the prices of milk and other commodities, which disparity has largely destroyed the purchasing power of milk producers for industrial products, has broken down the orderly production and marketing of milk and has seriously impaired the agricultural assets supporting the credit structure of the State and its local governmental subdivisions. That the danger to the public health and welfare is immediate and impending, the necessity urgent and such as will not admit of delay in public supervision and control in accord with proper standards of production, sanitation and marketing. The foregoing statements of fact, policy and application of this Act are hereby declared as a matter of Legislative determination.'

None of the legislative determinations of the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the passage of the act are denied by the appellant, nor was any effort made in the court below to disprove them. Such legislative ascertainments and determinations of facts, unless plainly contrary to those matters of common knowledge of which the courts may take judicial notice, are entitled to such weight as to require clear allegation and proof showing the contrary before the courts would be justified in overturning them, thus casting the burden of allegation and proof upon the party attacking such legislative determinations; it being the general rule that all reasonable presumptions will be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative act. Jackson Lumber Co. v. Walton County, 95 Fla. 632, 116 So. 771; Maxey Inc., v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 So. 121. It is also well settled that a statute may be valid as applied to one state of facts, though under another factual status an application of the statute might violate rights secured by organic law. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Robinson, 68 Fla. 407, 67 So. 139; Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Priest, 67 Fla. 370, 65 So. 282; Town of Boynton v. State, 103 Fla. 1113, 138 So. 639.

In this connection, it might be well to quote here some of the allegations of the bill, which were not denied by the answer:

'That for sometime prior to June 12th, 1933, the milk industry in the State of Florida had been in chaotic condition, with producers in many instances receiving less than the cost of production, with frequent price wars existing among the distributors, and with those engaged in the milk business facing financial loss and possible ruin, to the point of endangering a proper supply of pure and wholesome milk to be furnished and sold to the general public at a reasonable price. That efforts at private cooperation, regulation and control had proven entirely inadequate to permit proper and safe regulation of this industry in keeping with the welfare of the public and the needs of the people, and the dairy industry, to such an extent that relief from the Legislature to remedy such conditions were sought by a large number of reputable dairymen of the State engaged in the dairy business. As a result, there was introduced in the Legislature of Florida of 1933 a bill to provide such erlief, which bill was duly referred to a legislative committee for hearing, study, investigation and report. That thereafter said legislative committee proceeded to make full and complete investigation, interviewing and taking testimony, evidence and information from various dairymen of the State and members of the public, for the purpose of ascertaining if such regulation was needed, and such bill was in the interest of public welfare, and if an emergency existed calling for the exercise of the police powers of the State for the giving of relief to the dairy industry and to the public from such conditions. That as a result of such study, hearing and investigation, the said Legislature of Florida in 1933 enacted chapter 16078. Laws of Florida, of 1933, which was duly approved by the Governor June 12th, 1933, and thereafter became a law, in which act and law was incorporated the legislative finding and statement of policy based upon such legislative investigation, study, finding and report as embodied in section 1 of said Act.

'That pursuant to the terms of said act, the Milk Control Board of the State of Florida was duly set up, organized and created, and has continued to function and exercise its power of authority as therein authorized, with great benefit and advantage to those engaged in the milk industry and to the general public by stabilizing conditions in the production and marketing of fresh fluid milk in this State.

'That by the terms of said chapter 16078 Act of 1933, the authority of said Milk Control Board was due to expire and the said Milk Control Board was due to cease and come to an end June 30th, 1933, but prior to such time many dairymen of the State, as well as many members of the general public, realizing the need for the continuance of said law, and the beneficial effects which its regulation had brought about during its operation, and foreseeing confusion, chaos, and a return to the previous disturbing and unprofitable conditions of the industry prior to the adoption of said law, thereby creating an emergency, with resulting endangering of an adequate supply of pure and wholesome milk to the general public to be purchased at a reasonable price, with a corresponding adequate return to the producer and distributor of milk, based upon such emergency, again sought from the Legislature a continuation of the said Milk Control Board and of the law creating the same.

'That as a result thereof, there was introduced into the Legislature of 1935 an act having for its purpose the continuation of the said Milk Control Board of the State of Florida, and providing for the legal succession of the said Board created under the Act of 1935 by a similar board, and providing further that all orders, rules and regulations of such Board created by the Act of 1933 should continue until otherwise changed or modified or created by the Board set up in such Act of 1935. That said Act of 1935, which is now known as chapter 17103, General Laws of Florida, 1935, was duly referred to a legislative committee for the purpose of study, investigation and report. That pursuant thereto, such legislative committee made full investigation as to the needs of such legislation, in reviewing and listening to the evidence and testimony of various dairymen in the State and to members of the public, and also investigating, studying and considering the milk industry of the State, the existence of an emergency,...