Burns v. Johnson

Decision Date01 July 1939
PartiesBURNS v. JOHNSON, Constable, et al.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Appeal from Chancery Court, Shelby County; L. D. Bejach, Chancellor.

Suit by W. F. Burns against J. C. Johnson, Constable, and others, to recover taxes, penalty, and costs paid under protest. From a decree for the complainant, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

F. H. Gailor, of Memphis, for appellants.

Ralph Davis and Hugh Magevney, both of Memphis, for appellee.

COOK, Justice.

A distress warrant was issued by the county court clerk and placed in the hands of J. C. Johnson, constable, to enforce payment of a tax alleged to be due from the complainant W. F. Burns as the operator of a protective agency. The tax, penalty, and costs, amounting to $253.45, were paid under protest, and complainant filed the bill to recover the amount exacted from him, upon allegations that he was not operating a protective agency and not subject to the tax.

The cause was heard by the chancellor upon bill, answer, and proof, and he found that complainant was engaged in the business of a night watchman and as such was not taxable as a protective agency, and upon that finding the chancellor entered the decree awarding complainant a recovery.

The defendants appealed and have assigned errors that raise the question of whether or not under the facts the complainant is taxable under the statute. Item 33, § 1, Art. 2, Chapter 108, Pub.Acts of 1937, under the heading "Detective, Investigating Or Protective Agencies," imposes a tax of one hundred dollars upon "any person operating a detective agency or investigating agency or protective agency, or any person acting as a detective, investigator or protective agency or making confidential reports."

It is shown by the evidence that complainant is employed by several merchants and manufacturers in the City of Memphis to inspect their premises at night, and that he is aided in the work by three or more assistants. His duties under the employment are to examine the doors of storehouses after they are closed to see whether the doors are locked; to seal the doors after they are locked; to raise the awnings in front of stores at night and lower them the next morning; to see that lights in the stores are extinguished; in winter, to observe the heating plant and see that the heat is properly maintained; if fire is observed, to notify the fire department, and in case of burglary to notify the employer and the police department. Upon these facts the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Southern Motors Inc. v. Morton
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • March 21, 1941
  • Southern Motors v. Morton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • March 21, 1941
  • Western Pipe Line Constructors, Inc. v. Dickinson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • February 6, 1958
    ...unmindful of the general rule of construction of tax statutes; it must be liberal in favor of the taxpayer. Burns v. Johnson, 174 Tenn. 615, 618, 130 S.W.2d 89, 123 A.L.R. 1022, and other cases cited. But words employed by the Legislature in the enactment of such statutes are to be taken in......
  • City of Greenfield v. Callins
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • June 5, 1953
    ...Tenn. 148, 140 S.W. 1068; Gulf Refining Co. of Louisiana v. City of Chattanooga, 136 Tenn. 505, 190 S.W. 463; Burns v. Johnson, 174 Tenn. 615, 130 S.W.2d 89, 123 A.L.R. 1022. 'It is a well-settled rule of interpretation in this state that statutes levying taxes or duties upon citizens will ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT