Odlin v. Woodruff

• Decision Date: 31 January 1893
• Citation: 12 So. 227,31 Fla. 160
• Parties: ODLIN v. WOODRUFF, Tax Collector.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

12 So. 227

31 Fla. 160

ODLIN v. WOODRUFF, Tax Collector.

Florida Supreme Court

January 31, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Orange county; John D. Broome, Judge.

Suit by Arthur F. Odlin against Seth Woodruff, tax collector of Orange county, to enjoin the collection of a license tax, and declare the law under which the tax was assessed void. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill and dismissing same, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

If a tax collector seizes personal property to enforce a tax levied under an act that is unconstitutional, such seizure would be a trespass, for the redress of which there is ample remedy at law. A court of equity has no jurisdiction to restrain a trespass upon personal property, except in rare cases, where the property has some peculiar intrinsic value to the owner that could not be compensated in money. The case of Young v. Thomas, 17 Fla. 169, involving the constitutionality of a license tax on lawyers, approvingly referred to.

COUNSEL Arthur F. Odlin, in pro. per.

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

TAYLOR, J.

The fourteenth subdivision of section 9 of chapter 4010, Laws approved June 10, 1891, provides as follows: 'All dentists and lawyers practicing their profession in the state of Florida shall pay to the tax collecter in the counties where their office is located a license tax of ten dollars.' The same section in express terms prohibits any person from engaging in any business or profession mentioned therein unless a state license shall have been procured from the tax collector, which license shall be issued to each person on receipt of the amount therein provided; and further provides that counties, incorporated cities, and towns may impose such further taxes of the same kind upon the same subjects as they may deem proper when the business profession, or occupation shall be engaged in within their boundaries, provided that such further tax so imposed shall not exceed 50 per cent. of the state tax. Section 10 of the same chapter provides that if any person, firm, or association shall carry on or conduct any business or profession for which a license is required, without first obtaining such license, they shall, except in such cases as are otherwise provided for in said act, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than double the amount required for such license. And the latter section provides further that the payment of all license taxes may be enforced by the seizure and sale of property by the collector. The same chapter provides also for a fee of 25 cents to the county judge for the issuance of the license. The appellant, who is a lawyer, having neglected and refused to pay the license tax prescribed by this statute to be paid by all persons engaging in the practice of his profession, had his personal property seized and levied upon by the appellee, as tax collector, for the purpose of enforcing its payment. The appellant thereupon filed his bill in equity in the circuit court of Orange county against the appellee, as tax collector of said county alleging therein that he was a member of the bar of said circuit court, and had been such member since the 31st day of December, 1885, on which day he was granted a license to practice the profession of law by said circuit court, and that ever since then he has continued in the practice of said profession in the various courts of this state, and has an office for such practice in the city of Orlando.

The bill assails the foregoing statute as being unconstitutional in so far as it affects the complainant, and urges that it...