Appeal
from Circuit Court, Perry County; Roy Helm, Judge.
Fedrow
Day was charged with the violation of an ordinance of the
City of Hazard placing a tax on nonresident liquor wholesaler
delivering his products to customers within municipality by
means of his own trucks. From a judgment for the defendant
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, for the use and benefit of City
of Hazard, appeals.
Affirmed.
CAMMACK
Justice.
This
case presents the question as to whether a municipality may
place a tax on a nonresident liquor wholesaler, jobber or
distributor, who delivers his products to customers within
the municipality by means of his own trucks. The lower court
held that the City of Hazard could not levy such a tax and
the City prayed an appeal; however, it did not perfect it.
The appellee has filed a copy of the record in accordance
with the provisions of section 741 of the Civil Code of
Practice, and has asked that the judgment be affirmed. See
Brown v. Thompson, 285 Ky. 410, 148 S.W.2d 285.
Since
we concur in the views expressed by the trial judge in his
opinion denying the right of the City to levy the tax, we
quote it herein and adopt it as our own. It follows:
"This
is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Hazard
Police Court, pursuant to section 3519, Kentucky Statutes
to test the validity of an ordinance of said city, and is
under submission to the court for final opinion and
judgment upon an agreed statement of facts.
"In
1938 the City amended its ordinance fixing license fees for
the various phases of the liquor business carried on in the
city, and the section of said ordinance complained of in
this case, when so amended, reads as follows:
"'No
permit or license shall be granted to a wholesaler,
jobber, or distributor until such person has secured the
license as such wholesaler, jobber or distributor as
required by the laws of the State of Kentucky, and until
the said person has paid into the City Treasury the sum
of $200.00 for the privilege of acting as such
wholesaler, jobber or distributor for the period of one
year.
"'
Provided: that where such wholesaler, jobber or
distributor maintains a store, plant, warehouse or
distribution point outside of the City of Hazard and
delivers liquors to customers within the corporate
limits of said city by means of his own trucks, having
first obtained the license as such wholesaler, jobber or
distributor required by the laws of the State of Kentucky,
may be granted a license by the Clerk of the City of Hazard
upon paying into the Treasury of said city the sum of $50.00
for each truck so used."'
"The
italicized lines embraced the amendment of 1938.
"According
to the agreed statement of facts the defendant was arrested
on May 24, 1940, charged with a violation of the foregoing
ordinance, and was at that time a regularly employed truck
driver for Josselson Brothers, Incorporated, of Ashland
Kentucky, and was on business for said Josselson Brothers at
the time, acting as their duly authorized agent and within
the scope of his authority; that Josselson Brothers,
Incorporated, at the time mentioned, were wholesale liquor
dealers, holding permit No. 33 under section 2554b-114,
subsection 4, April 1939 Supplement to Kentucky Statutes;
that the truck operated by defendant was owned by Josselson
Brothers and was being used in compliance with sections
2554b-118 and 2554b-120 of the Statutes; that the liquor on
the truck at the time had been sold by Josselson Brothers on
their licensed premises at Ashland to licensed retail liquor
dealers in Hazard, and were in process of being delivered by
defendant as truck driver and agent of the wholesalers; that
Josselson Brothers had not complied with the foregoing
ordinance by taking out the license mentioned therein
covering the truck being used by the defendant on the
occasion in question.
"The
question to be determined is whether one who holds a permit
under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law to deal in spirits
and wine at wholesale possesses also the incidental right by
virtue of said permit to transport such products to licensed
retail dealers within the state. While the court has been
referred to no case involving this exact question, able
counsel in this case have thoroughly argued and briefed the
subject of transportation under the Control Law, and the task
of the Court, the construction of the Control Law in this
respect, has been rendered comparatively easy. Several
sections of the law are involved.
"Section
2554b-114, listing the kinds of licenses which may be
granted, provides in subsection 4 for wholesale liquor
license as follows:
"'License
to sell distilled spirits and wine at wholesale, the fee
for which shall be $1,000 per annum';
"Section
2554b-120 sets out the business in which a wholesaler may
engage and reads in part as follows:
"'A
wholesaler's license shall authorize the holder
thereof to purchase, receive, store, and possess
distilled spirits and wine; to sell same at wholesale,
from the licensed premises only; and to transport from
his licensed premises for himself only any alcoholic
beverage which he is authorized under his license to
sell, provided that he so transport such beverages in the
manner provided for manufacturers in section 21 of this
Act ***.'
"Section
2554b-118 (Section 21 of the original Act), provides just
how a manufacturer may transport his products; he is
authorized, '*** to transport for himself only any
alcoholic beverage which he is authorized under this
license to manufacture or sell, provided that he so
transports such beverages by a truck, wagon, or other
vehicle owned and operated by himself, and which shall
have affixed to its sides at all times a sign of such
...