Sweat v. Turpentine & Rosin Factors, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 October 1933
• Citation: 112 Fla. 428,150 So. 617
• Parties: SWEAT, Sheriff v. TURPENTINE & ROSIN FACTORS, Inc.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

150 So. 617

112 Fla. 428

SWEAT, Sheriff v. TURPENTINE & ROSIN FACTORS, Inc.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

October 20, 1933

Suit for injunction by Turpentine & Rosin Factors, Incorporated against Rex Sweat, as Sheriff of Duval County. From an order granting an injunction, defendant appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; D. A Simmons, judge.

COUNSEL

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter and Robert J. Pleus Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Stanton Walker, of Jacksonville, for appellee.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

Suit was instituted in the circuit court of Duval county to enjoin the sheriff from enforcing the provisions of House Bill No. 1451, chapter 16080, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1933. Injunction was granted, and from that order appeal was entered to this court.

Sections 1, 2, 2-A, and 3 of the statute are as follows:

'Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle operating in the State of Florida to carry an auxiliary tank containing gasoline for the use of said vehicles while in operation in this State.

'Sec. 2. Any motor vehicle operating in this State shall be equipped with one gasoline tank attached to said vehicle, and it is hereby declared to be unlawful for any of the above named motor vehicles so operated in this State to carry an auxiliary tank of gasoline, or other motor fuel for the use of said motor vehicle.

'Sec. 2-A. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to or affect trucks or other carriers operated by the State or any County or municipality thereof.

'Sec. 3. Any person operating any motor vehicle described in Sections 1 and 2 of this Act in violation of the provisions thereof may be arrested with or without warrant, and shall be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or by fine not more than Fifty ($50.00) Dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'

The contention upheld by the lower court was, the act was invalid because it violates the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and violates sections 1 and 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the state Constitution.

It is contended that the act is valid as an exercise of the state police power.

It is well settled that the exercise of police power is confined to those acts which may reasonably be construed as being expedient at least for the protection of public safety, public welfare, public morals, or public health. Certainly it cannot be construed that there is anything in the act which may contribute to the benefit of public morals or public health, and we are entirely unable to find anything in the act which indicates that it is warranted as a measure for the benefit of public safety or public welfare.

If it was intended as an act to protect public safety upon the hypothesis that gasoline is a dangerous commodity and that hauling it on the highway is hazardous to the public, it must also be admitted that the act is discriminatory because it purports only to prohibit the hauling of gasoline in an auxiliary tank, which gasoline is to be used for fuel for the motor vehicle in which it is being hauled on the public highways. The same tank of gasoline may under the law be hauled in the same vehicle over the same highway to be used for fuel in any other motor vehicle or for any other purpose and the mere fact that it is being hauled for the purpose of being used as fuel in that particular vehicle in which it is being hauled adds nothing to its dangerous character, nor does it add anything to the hazard incident to its being hauled on the highway. It may also be said that if it is hazardous for the...