Atlanta Laundries, Inc. v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 18 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 8516. |
| Citation | 162 S.E. 912,174 Ga. 448 |
| Parties | ATLANTA LAUNDRIES, Inc., v. HARRISON, Comptroller-General, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1932.
Syllabus by the Court.
In injunction suit, evidence sustained finding that plaintiff corporation operated eight laundries, each of which was taxable (Laws 1927, p. 76, § 2, par. 62 and amendment, Laws 1929, p. 66, § 16).
That single corporation owned and operated eight laundries held not to prevent levying tax for each of laundries operated (Laws 1927, p. 76, § 2, par. 62 and amendment, Laws 1929, p. 66, § 16).
General act and amendment providing for taxation of laundry establishments held not violative of constitutional provision as to subject-matter and title of statutes (Const art. 3, § 7, par. 8; Laws 1927, p. 76, § 2, par. 62 and amendment, Laws 1929, p. 66, § 16).
Statute and amendment providing for taxing laundries according to number of persons employed held not repugnant to constitutional provision requiring uniformity (Const. art. 7 § 2, par. 1; Laws 1927, p. 76, § 2, par. 62 and amendment Laws 1929, p. 66, § 16).
Where corporation operating eight laundries was found subject to tax on each laundry, and tax remained unpaid for 30 days, refusal to enjoin collection of penalty held not error (Laws 1927, p. 76, § 2, par. 62 and amendment, Laws 1929, pp. 66, 76, § § 16, 35).
1. Under the evidence in the case, the court was authorized to find that the plaintiff, Atlanta Laundries, Inc., operates eight laundries, each of which is subject to the tax objected to.
2. Under the provisions of section 2, paragraph 62, of the General Tax Act of 1927 (Georgia Laws 1927, p. 76), and section 16 of the amendment to that act, approved August 29, 1929 (Georgia Laws 1929, p. 66), the plaintiff should be required to pay a tax, according to the scale of taxes in the Tax Act provided, upon each of the laundries operated by that corporation.
3. There is no merit in the contention that the provisions quoted from the General Tax Act of 1927 and from the amendment thereto enacted in 1929 are invalid because in violation of the constitutional provision, Const. art. 3,§ 7, par. 8, that no law shall pass which refers to more than one subject-matter or contains matter different from what is expressed in the title thereof. Nor is either of them repugnant to article 7, section 2, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of this state, which declares that all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects.
4. The classification based upon number of employees is not repugnant to the article, section, and paragraph of the Constitution last referred to. The classification is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Sawtell v. Atlanta, 138 Ga. 687, 75 S.E. 982. Nor does the provision in the tax act now under consideration fall within the reasons given in the case of Woolworth v. Harrison, 172 Ga. 179, 156 S.E. 904, for holding that the tax imposed upon chain stores was unconstitutional.
5. Section 35 of the act of 1929, amending the General Tax Act of 1927 (Georgia Laws 1929, p. 76), is as follows: "Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that should any of the taxes herein imposed remain due and unpaid for 30 days from due date thereof, then such person, firm, or corporation shall be subject to and shall pay a penalty of fifty per cent. of the tax imposed." Under the facts of this case, the court did not err in refusing an injunction to restrain the collection of this penalty.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.
Suit by the Atlanta Laundries, Incorporated against William B. Harrison, as Comptroller General, and another for an injunction. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
General act and amendment providing for taxation of laundry establishments held not violative of constitutional provision as to subject-matter and title of statutes (Const. art. 3, § 7, par. 8; Laws 1927, p. 76, § 2, par. 62 and amendment, Laws 1929, p. 66, § 16).
Atlanta Laundries, Inc., filed its petition against William B Harrison as comptroller general of the state of Georgia, and W. S. Richardson, tax collector of Fulton county, seeking to enjoin the collection of a tax on laundries, sought to be enforced under paragraph 62 of section 2 of the General Tax Act of the state of Georgia, approved August 25, 1927 (Ga. Laws 1927, p. 76) and section 16 of the General Tax Act amendment approved August 29, 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 66), and to enjoin the enforcement of certain penalties sought to be assessed by virtue of section 35 of the amendment last referred to (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 76). The defendants interposed their general demurrer to the allegations that the taxing statutes are unconstitutional, and that an assessment of the penalties would be inequitable under the facts set out in the case. The court overruled those grounds of the demurrer.
The contention of the plaintiff that its plants and collecting stations constitute one laundry was heard on its merits, evidence being submitted; and the judge ruled that each plant owned by the plaintiff in error constitutes a laundry. The plaintiff insists that it owns and operate under one charter "eight plants and eight stations established for the purpose of collecting laundry." The defendants contend that the petitioner operates eight laundries. The plaintiff introduced the affidavit of George H. Fauss, deposing as follows: The Atlanta Laundries, Inc., maintains in the city of Atlanta nine stations established for the purpose of collecting sundry articles to be laundered; that all of its properties and stations are owned under one charter, and operated under one general management, which is located in the Glenn building, Marietta street, Atlanta, Ga. All bank deposits are made in the one name, Atlanta Laundries, Inc. All auditing is done by and all general records are kept in the office of Atlanta Laundries, Inc., in the Glenn Building. All bills are paid by vouchers of Atlanta Laundries, Inc. The name Atlanta Laundries, Inc., arose by virtue of the fact that that corporation purchased the properties and assets of several companies located in the city of Atlanta. The management of this corporation does not consider itself as operating and managing nine separate laundries, but said management has charge over one laundry which has nine stations established within the city of Atlanta.
The defendants introduced the affidavit of H. G. Bell, deposing as follows: He is and has for several years been occupying the post of deputy revenue commissioner of the state of Georgia, in which capacity he is charged with the collection of delinquent occupation taxes. He has recently been engaged in assisting the Attorney General of Georgia in the preparation of the present case for trial, and during the past two weeks has visited the main offices of the following laundries, where he obtained lists showing prices charged for laundering articles of clothing: Troy Laundry at 650 Glen Iris drive; Trio Laundry at 19 Hilliard...
To continue reading
Request your trial