Jackson v. Neff

64 Fla. 326
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJune 15, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 64 Fla. 326 (Jackson v. Neff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jackson v. Neff, 64 Fla. 326 (Fla. 1912).

Opinion

Whitfield, C. J.

On a writ error in hateas corpus proceeding, the only question presented for determination is the validity of the following statute of 1911:

[328]*328“Chapter 6212 — (No. 93).
AN ACT to License Automobiles and Other Motor Driven, Vehicles Using the Public Roads or Highways in the-State of Florida Either for Hire or Otherwise.
Be it Enacted by the Legislature o,f the State of Florida:
Section 1. The owner or operator of every automobile- and other motor driven vehicle operating in this State more than fifteen days when used for hire, charter or-when charge is made for use thereof in any manner or form whatsoever, shall pay annually to the Tax Collector-of the several counties of this State a county license tax as follows:
For any automobile and other motor driven vehicle-of less than ten horsepower, five dollars.
From eleven to twenty-nine horsepower, ten dollars. From thirty to forty horsepower inclusive, twenty dollars.
From forty-one to fifty horsepower inclusive, thirty dollars.
From fifty-one to sixty horsepower inclusive, fifty dollars.
From sixty-one to seventy horsepower inclusive, seventy dollars.
From seventy-one horsepower and over, one hundred' dollars.
When any automobile and other motor driven vehicles, are used by the owner thereof, or without charge the an nual license tax shall be as follows:
For any automobile and other motor driven vehicle of' less than ten horsepower, three dollars.
From eleven to twenty-nine horsepower, five dollar's.
[329]*329From thirty to forty horsepower inclusive, ten dollars.
From forty-one to fifty horsepower inclusive, fifteen dollars.
From fifty-one to sixty horsepower inclusive, twenty-five dollars.
From sixty-one to seventy horsepower inclusive, thirty-five dollars.
And seventy-one horsepower and over fifty dollars.
The payment of one such county license tax in the State of Florida shall exempt the owner or operator from the payment of any other such county license tax during the license year. Upon the payment of such county license tax the owner or operator shall he given an appropriately numbered metal tax with the name of the county and the year for which said county license tax is paid indicated thereon whether for hire or owner’s use, which said tag shall be kept in plain view on such automobile or other motor driven vehicle. All persons desiring to procure said license as herein provided for shall make application to the County Tax Collector of the several counties upon blank to be furnished by the County Tax Collector showing the essential facts for the procurement of such license, which said metallic tags and blank forms shall be furnished the County Tax Collectors of the several counties by the County Commission of the several counties.
Sec. 2. All monies derived from the payment of such license tax shall be paid into the road and bridge funds of the several counties.
Sec. 3. Any person or persons, firm or association that shall fail to comply with the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than double the amount [330]*330required for such license or imprisonment not exceeding six months.
Approved June 5, 1911.”

The court should not declare a statute to be unenforceable because unconstitutional, unless it clearly appears beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable basis for it within the lawmaking power of the legislature. State ex rel. Gubbins v. Anson, 132 Wis. 461, 112 N. W. Rep. 475.

The taxing power of the legislature has no limitations except those contained in the State and Federal Constitutions.

In the State Constitution are the following provisions:

“Section 1, Art. IX. The legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of all property, both real and personal excepting such property as may be exempted by law for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes.”
“Section 5, Art. IX. The legislature shall authorize the several counties and incorporated cities or towns in the State to assess and impose taxes for county and municipal purposes, and for no other purposes, and all property shall be taxed upon the principles established for State taxation. But the cities and incorporated towns shall make their own assessments for municipal purposes upon the property within their limits. The legislature may also provide for levying a special capitation tax, and a tax on licenses. But the capitation tax shall not exceed one dollar a year and shall be applied exclusively to common school purposes.”
“Section 12. Bill of Rights. No person shall be- [331]*331- deprived of -— property without due process of law.”
Section 1 of the NIY Amentment to the Federal Constitution provides that “No State shall---deprive any person of---property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Neither the State nor the Federal Constitution contains any express limitations upon the power of the legislature to provide by a duly enacted statute for imposing and collecting a tax on occupations or licenses; but such power should not be so exercised as to deprive any person of property without due process of law, or so as to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. The statute here applies to all persons who operate automobiles on the public roads of the State. Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 South. Rep. 834; Keeney v. Comptroller of New York, 222 U. S. 525, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Bell’s Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Sawyer v. Gilmore, — Me. —, 83 Atl. Rep. 673; In re Watson, 17 S. Dak. 486, 97 N. W. Rep. 463, 2 Ann. Cas. 321 and notes; Consumers’ League of Colorado v. Colorado & S. Ry. Co., — Colo. —, 125 Pac. Rep. 577; Afro-Am. &c. v. State, 61 Fla. 85; Penn. Ind. Ins. Co. v. State, 61 Fla. 376.

The power of the legislature is unrestricted to impose ad valorem taxes by a duly enacted statute where the limitations imposed by the State constitution as to uniform and equal rates and just valuations are observed, and the organic provisions as to due process and equal protection of the laws are not violated. Even double taxation may not violate constitutional limitations where uniformity of rates, just valuations and due process are [332]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Robinson v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board
194 So. 269 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Florida Sugar Distributors, Inc. v. Wood
184 So. 641 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
C. v. Floyd Fruit Co. v. Florida Citrus Commission
175 So. 248 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Harper v. England
168 So. 403 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
State Ex Rel. Lane Drug Stores, Inc. v. Simpson
166 So. 227 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Curtis v. Pfost
21 P.2d 73 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1933)
Heriot v. City of Pensacola
146 So. 654 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Amos
141 So. 153 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Gray v. Central Florida Lumber Co.
141 So. 604 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Portland Van & Storage Co. v. Hoss
9 P.2d 122 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1932)
Miami Transit Co. v. McLin
133 So. 99 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Inter-City Coach Lines Inc. v. Harrison
157 S.E. 673 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Blitch v. Buchanan
131 So. 151 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Jerome H. Sheip Co. v. Amos
130 So. 699 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Solberg v. Davenport
232 N.W. 477 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
Klemm v. Davenport
129 So. 904 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Amos v. Mathews
126 So. 308 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Taylor v. Brown
1929 OK 255 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Hiers v. Mitchell
116 So. 81 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
State Ex Rel. Pennington v. Quigg
114 So. 859 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Fla. 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-neff-fla-1912.