Blanchard v. City Of Bristol

• Decision Date: 26 June 1902
• Citation: 41 S.E. 948,100 Va. 469
• Parties: BLANCHARD v. CITY OF BRISTOL.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

41 S.E. 948

100 Va. 469

BLANCHARD

v.CITY OF BRISTOL.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 26, 1902.

ATTORNEY'S LICENSE—POWER OF CITY—FAILURE TO PAY—ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCE.

1. Under Code, § 1040, providing that a city may, when anything for which a license is required is to be done within the city, impose a tax, and require a license therefor, and a city charter empowering the council to require a license from lawyers, a city may, by ordinance, impose and collect a license tax from lawyers for the privilege of practicing the profession and carrying on business in the city.

2. The authority to impose fines and penalties for a failure to pay a license tax is an incident to the power to levy such tax.

3. Where a city charter prescribes the particular manner in which ordinances are to be enforced, that method is exclusive.

Error to corporation court of Bristol. One Blanchard was indicted for violating a city ordinance, and brings error. Affirmed.

A. H. Blanchard, for plaintiff in error.

Fulkerson, Page & Hurt, for defendant in error.

WHITTLE, J. This is a writ of error to a judgment of the corporation court of the city of Bristol affirming a Judgment of a police justice of that city inflicting a fine upon the plaintiff in error for a violation of an ordinance imposing a license tax upon him as an attorney at law.

It appears that the city council had adopted an ordinance imposing a graduated license tax on lawyers for the privilege of practicing their profession within the city limits, and providing that any lawyer who engaged in the practice without having first obtained a license therefor should be fined not less than $5 nor more than $25 a day for each offense.

Plaintiff in error had paid the state license tax for the period in question, but refused to pay the license tax required by the ordinance, and was fined for its violation.

There can be no doubt of the authority of the city to impose the tax complained of in this case. Section 1040 of the Code provides that, in addition to the state tax on any license, the council of a city or town may, when anything for which a license is so required is to be done within the city or town, impose a tax for the privilege of doing the same, and require a license to be obtained therefor. And the charter of the city empowers the council to require a license from lawyers, and to levy a tax thereon, and impose a fine for any violation of the ordinance making the exaction. Acts 1899-1900, p. 639, §§ 64, 65.

The power of the general assembly to authorize municipal corporations to impose and collect a license tax from lawyers and others for the privilege of practicing their profession and carrying on business in the corporation has repeatedly received the sanction of this court Ould v. City of Richmond, 23 Grat. 464, 14...