Southern Fruit Co. Inc v. Porter, 14765.

Decision Date04 November 1938
Docket NumberNo. 14765.,14765.
PartiesSOUTHERN FRUIT CO., Inc., et al. v. PORTER et al.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

199 S.E. 537

SOUTHERN FRUIT CO., Inc., et al.
v.
PORTER et al.

No. 14765.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 4, 1938.


[199 S.E. 538]

Original suit by the Southern Fruit Company, Inc., and others against F. B. Porter, representing a class too numerous to name of the various mayors of cities and towns in South Carolina, and others to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the business and property of the petitioners by the institution of criminal prosecutions against them, their agents or employees, under the terms of various ordinances of the towns and cities in South Carolina.

Injunction granted.

Charles W. McTeer, of Chester, for petitioners.

Williams & Stewart, of Lancaster, Tison & Miller, of Bennettsville, P. A. Murray, Jr., of Cheraw, and B. J. White and Spencer & Spencer, all of Rock Hill, for respondents.

FISHBURNE, Justice.

The six named petitioners are non-resident corporations, engaged in business as wholesalers of goods and merchandise, all having their principal places of business in North Carolina and Georgia. They filed their petition in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, praying for a preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents from interfering with the business and property of petitioners, by the institution of criminal prosecutions against them, their agents or employees, under the terms of. the various ordinances of the towns and cities in South Carolina which are alleged to be invalid as to them. A temporary restraining order was issued, and the respondents were directed to show cause why a permanent injunction should not be granted. The defendants made return, alleging that the license ordinances under attack are valid, and praying that the petition be dismissed and the rule discharged.

The complaining corporations are engaged in interstate commerce. Their method of doing business is to have their respective salesmen solicit orders for goods and merchandise from their customers, who are retail merchants in various cities and towns in South Carolina. When obtained, these orders are forwarded to the place of business of petitioners; in many instances the petitioners' customers send orders direct by mail. Upon receipt of the orders the goods and merchandise are loaded upon motor trucks owned by the respective petitioners, and delivery is made from these trucks to the customers. Petitioners make no sale or delivery of goods from warehouses in South Carolina, and make no sales from the trucks.

[199 S.E. 539]

The towns and cities of Lancaster, Rock Hill, York, Clover, and Cheraw, and other cities and towns in this State too numerous to name, have enacted certain ordinances for the purpose of requiring the petitioners, and others similarly situated, to pay to the said cities and towns a license tax, variously designated as a tax "for the use and occupation of streets, " a "delivery license tax, " a "privilege tax, " an "occupational tax, " and a tax "for the use of streets."

The petitioners allege, among other things, that the license tax provided for in these ordinances is invalid and unlawful, in that it imposes a burden on interstate commerce engaged in by them, contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and not authorized by the laws of South Carolina.

It appears that several of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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