Olan Mills, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee

Citation100 So.2d 164
PartiesOLAN MILLS, Incorporated, Appellant, v. CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, a municipal corporation organized under the State laws ofFlorida, Appellee.
Decision Date22 January 1958
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

J. M. & H. P. Sapp, Panama City, for appellant.

Messer & Willis, Tallahassee, for appellee.

HOBSON, Justice.

This is the third time that Olan Mills, Incorporated, has had occasion to appeal to this court from a circuit court decision involving the validity of municipal license taxes. See Olan Mills, Inc., of Alabama v. City of Tallahassee, Fla., 43 So.2d 521, and Olan Mills, Inc., v. Panama City, Fla., 78 So.2d 561. Appellant's method of doing business has not changed since these cases were decided. It still sends out solicitors for photographic work and later sends a photographer to take pictures, which are developed, and all contracts pertaining thereto entered, beyond the borders of the state. We held in Olan Mills, Inc., of Alabama, v. City of Tallahassee, supra, 43 So.2d 521, that this process is interstate commerce exclusively, that each of the operations involved constitutes an inseparable link in the chain of events, and that there is no separate and distinct incident upon which the tax could fall. In so holding, we relied upon Nippert v. City of Richmond, 327 U.S. 416, 66 S.Ct. 586, 90 L.Ed. 760, and Graves v. City of Gainesville, 78 Ga.App. 186, 51 S.E.2d 58.

Pertinent sections of the Tallahassee ordinance which Olan Mills attacks in the instant case are as follows:

'The amount of occupational license taxes levied and imposed upon every person that shall engage in or manage any business, profession, privilege or occupation hereinafter muntioned within the city is hereby fixed, graded, determined and imposed at the following rates or amounts:

'Photographers or Cameraman, whether resident, non-resident, transient or itinerant, or those taking photographs by exposure or engaged in portrait enlarging, copying, coloring or finishing, or ferotypers and crayon artists.....25.00 'In addition to the license hereinabove provided for there is hereby levied and imposed upon every person engaged in the occupation of a salesman or solicitor for any photographer, cameraman or other person engaged in the business of portrait enlarging, copying, coloring or finishing, ferotyper or crayon artist, whether such salesman or solicitor be resident, non-resident, transient or itinerant and who solicits orders from the general public for the taking of photographs or exposures therefor, the enlargement, copying, coloring or finishing of portraits or crayon sketches through the sale of coupons tokens or other similar device for a valuable consideration or for which an advance deposit of money is paid or delivered to such salesman or solicitor, an occupational license fee of fifteen dollars per annum, or any fraction thereof, that such salesman or solicitor shall engage in such activity within the city. Such license shall not be transferrable.'

The city contends that the tax sought to be imposed by this ordinance falls upon local activity and should be upheld as nondiscriminatory. The case most nearly in point relied upon by the city is Lucas v. City of Charlotte, 4 Cir., 86 F.2d 394, 109 A.L.R. 297. That case, however, was urged upon us in Olan Mills, Inc., of Alabama v. City of Tallahassee, supra, 43 So.2d 521, and we rejected it as inconsistent with Nippert v. City of Richmond, supra.

Since the Nippert case was decided the Supreme Court of the United States has squarely held that any direct tax upon the privilege of carrying on a business exclusively interstate in character is invalid as violating the commerce clause, and that this is true...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Credicorp, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Banking and Finance, 94-440
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 17 July 1995
    ...or the United States mail"). Florida courts have also applied this prohibition to the imposition of a license tax. Olan Mills v. City of Tallahassee, 100 So.2d 164 (Fla.1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 924, 79 S.Ct. 604, 3 L.Ed.2d 627 (1959) (where corporation was engaged in interstate commerc......
  • Armstrong v. City of Tampa
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 24 February 1960
    ...review by certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeal because of an alleged conflict with our prior decision in Olan Mills, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee, Fla., 100 So.2d 164, and similar cases discussed in their brief. Article V, Section 4, Florida Constitution, Being dubious of the prope......
  • Olan Mills v. Town of Kingstree
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 29 June 1960
    ...Olan Mills, Inc., 196 Va. 898, 86 S.E.2d 27; and more recently before the Courts of the State of Florida in Olan Mills, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 164, 166. The Florida Court based its decision upon the latter Virginia decision, 'The Supreme Court of Virginia has recen......
  • City of Watertown v. Hagy, 10600
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 16 June 1970
    ...v. City of Tallahassee, Fla., 43 So.2d 521; Olan Mills, Incorporated v. Panama City, Fla., 78 So.2d 561; Olan Mills, Incorporated v. City of Tallahassee, Fla., 100 So.2d 164. Also see Annot. in 7 A.L.R.2d, Regulation of practice of photography, p. 416. Accordingly, the Watertown ordinance r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT