Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gray v. Cent. Fla. Lbr. Co., (1932)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida Number:  Visitors: 9
Judges: TERRELL, J. —
Attorneys: Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and H. E. Carter, Assistant, for Appellant; Baker Baker and Martin Sack, for Appellee.
Filed: Mar. 15, 1932
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 448 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 449 The legislature of 1931 enacted Chapter 14677, Laws of Florida, requiring all corporations authorized to do business in this state to file annual reports with the Secretary of State and to pay a tax in the nature o
More

All the questions raised in this petition for rehearing were fully covered in the main opinion except the first which is in effect that Chapter 14677, Acts of 1931, Laws of Florida, contravenes the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Sections One and Twelve of the Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, because it required appellee to file annual reports while corporations paying a filing fee of One Thousand Dollars are exempt from making any reports whatever.

In Assaria State Bank vs. Dolley, 219 U.S. 121, 55 L. Ed. 123,31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189, the Supreme Court upheld a classification predicated solely on volume of surplus as required between incorporated and unincorporated banks. The same court has frequently upheld statutes directed at an evil as it actually exists in the contemplation of the Legislature without attempting to cover the whole field of possible abuse. Patsone vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138, 58 L. Ed. 539,34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; Keokee Consolidated Coke Co. v. Taylor,234 U.S. 224, 58 L. Ed. 1288, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856; Griffith v. State of Connecticut, 218 U.S. 563, 54 L. Ed. 1151, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 132.

It is also conclusively settled by frequent decisions of the same court that, subject to certain limitations as respects interstate and foreign commerce, a state may impose such conditions upon permitting a corporation to do business within its limits as it may consider expedient, and that the condition may be made to depend on the payment of a designated license tax proportional to the amount of its capital used within the state. New York v. Roberts, 171 U.S. 658, 43 L. Ed. 323,19 Sup. Ct. 58.

Petition for rehearing denied.

BUFORD, C.J., AND WHITFIELD AND DAVIS, J.J., concur.

ELLIS AND BROWN, J.J., dissent.

*Page 462

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer