Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Ben Greene, Inc., SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS
| Decision Date | 14 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS |
| Citation | 54 So.2d 235 |
| Parties | CORP. v. BEN GREENE, Inc. CALVERT DISTILLERS CORP. et al. v. BEN GREENE, Inc. FRANKFORT DISTILLERS CERP. et al. v. BEN GREENE, Inc. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Harris, Barrett, McGlothlin & Dew, John D. Harris and H. L. McGlothlin, all of St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Robert W. Fisher, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
S. Henry Harris and Wm. C. Harris, St. Petersburg, for West's Drug Stores, Inc., and Royal Palm Pharmacy of Fort Myers, Inc., Intervenors.
John T. Wigginton and Caldwell, Parker, Foster & Wigginton, all of Tallahassee, as amicus curiae.
Sam Bucklew, Tampa, amicus curiae, for International Silver Co.
In each of these cases, which have been consolidated, the questions presented for our determination are identical. Indeed, with one exception, every question posed by appellants was determined by this Court adversely to appellants' position in and by our decision in the case of Liquor Store, Inc., v. Continental Distilling Corporation, Fla., 40 So.2d 371.
The question which was not, and which could not have been, presented in the above mentioned case is the one which deals with the findings or recitations of fact and declaration of necessity as to the State's economic policy made by the legislature and incorporated in Chapter 25204, Laws of Florida 1949, F.S.A. § 541.001 et seq., which Act is now before us for consideration.
Section 1 of Chapter 25204, supra, is entitled 'Findings of fact'. Epitomized the legislature's declarations were that the enactment of Chapter 25204, supra, will serve the public interest and general welfare of the State of Florida, will prevent the creation and perpetuation of monopoly and that the Act constitutes a lawful exercise of the police power. The general rule is that findings of fact made by the legislature are presumptively correct. However, it is well recognized that the findings of fact made by the legislature must actually be findings of fact. They are not entitled to the presumption of correctness if they are nothing more than recitations amounting only to conclusions and they are always subject to judicial inquiry. Moreover, findings of fact made by the legislature do not carry with them a presumption of correctness if they are obviously contrary to proven and firmly established truths of which courts may take judicial notice. If the subject upon which the legislature makes findings of fact is one which is fairly debatable, the presumption of correctness attaches and remains extant until and unless such findings are challenged and disproved in an appropriate proceeding.
The cases now under consideration were brought in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County by the appellants Seagram-Distillers Corporation, Calvert Distillers Corporation and Frankfort Distillers Corporation, against the appellee Ben Greene, Inc. The relief sought in each of these suits was an injunction against Ben Greene, Inc., restraining and enjoining Ben Greene, Inc., a corporation, its agents, servants and employees from selling, offering for sale, or advertising for sale any of the beverage products described in the several bills of complaint at prices less than the prices established by appellants in and by their fair trade agreements with various liquor dealers in the City of St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the State of Florida [Ben Greene, Inc., appellee, although requested or invited to do so, did not execute an agreement with any of the appellants] and from offering or making nay consessions whatsoever, whether by the giving of coupons or otherwise, in connection with any such sale, and from offering or giving any article of value in connection with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunbeam Corporation v. Masters of Miami
...which declared that the Act would serve the public interest and was a lawful exercise of the police power. In Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Ben Greene, Inc., Fla., 54 So.2d 235, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the nonsigner clause of this act was invalid, applying the rule of the firs......
-
Estate of Mccall v. United States
...than recitations amounting only to conclusions.” Moore v. Thompson, 126 So.2d 543, 549 (Fla.1960) (quoting Seagram–Distillers Corp. v. Ben Greene, Inc., 54 So.2d 235, 236 (Fla.1951)). Third, and most importantly, I agree with the plurality's conclusion that the statutory cap on noneconomic ......
-
NORTH FLA. WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES v. State
...and they are always subject to judicial inquiry. Moore v. Thompson, 126 So.2d 543, 549 (Fla.1960) (quoting Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Ben Greene, Inc., 54 So.2d 235, 236 (Fla.1951)). In point of fact, this Court in Chiles applied the above rule of law to hold unconstitutional a statute bar......
-
Moore v. Thompson
...In disposing of an attack upon the 1949 act containing such findings of fact, this Court said in Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Ben Greene, Inc., Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 235: '* * * with one exception every question posed by appellants was determined by this Court adversely to appellants' position ......