Rackley v. Stoutamire

• Decision Date: 07 April 1938
• Parties: RACKLEY v. STOUTAMIRE, Sheriff.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

180 So. 375

132 Fla. 33

RACKLEY v. STOUTAMIRE, Sheriff.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

April 7, 1938

Original proceeding in habeas corpus by J. V. Rackley against Frank Stoutamire, as sheriff in and for Leon county, Fla., to test the validity of a statute requiring payment of a license tax on coin-operated machines.

Writ dismissed and petitioner remanded.

COUNSEL McCord & Collins, of Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Tyrus A. Norwood, Asst. Atty. Gen for respondent.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus instituted in this court to test the validity of section 19 of chapter 18011 Acts of 1937.

The section reads as follows:

'Every person who operates for a profit any machine, contrivance or device which is set in motion or made or permitted to function by the insertion of a coin or slug shall pay a license tax of $5.00 for each machine, contrivance or device; provided, that when any merchandise vending machine is located in and operated only in a place of business for which a license has been duly issued for trading, buying, bartering, serving or selling tangible personal property under this or other law of this State the license tax thereon shall be $2.00 for each machine, contrivance, or device, and provided that this section shall not apply to coin operated machines licensed under some other law of this State, and provided that no County of Municipal license shall be required on machines vending drinking cups or postage stamps when located on public conveyances.'

The question as posed by the petitioner is:

'Does the imposition of the license fee purported to be levied under the provisions of section 19 of chapter 18011, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1937, deny to petitioner equal protection of the law, or deprive him of his property without due process of law, contrary to the guaranties of sections 1 and 12, Declaration of Rights of theFlorida Constitution, and article 14, Amendment to the Federal Constitution?'

The particular machine which petitioner admits he operated is, as stated by the petitioner, 'a small mechanical device which permitted a customer to purchase pistachio nuts in small quantities without the assistance of petitioner, or a clerk, by the insertion of a 1¢ coin into said device and the manipulation of a small lever; that said device had no amusement or chance features and was operated by the...