City of Carthage v. Rhoads

• Citation: 101 Mo. 175,14 S.W. 181
• Parties: CITY OF CARTHAGE v. RHOADS.
• Decision Date: 16 June 1890
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

14 S.W. 181

101 Mo. 175

CITY OF CARTHAGE v. RHOADS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 16, 1890.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — POLICE POWER — TAXATION.

The license tax imposed on dogs under the charter of the city of Carthage, art. 5, § 11, providing that the city shall have power to tax, regulate, restrain, and prohibit the running at large of dogs, is not in conflict with Const. Mo. art. 10, § 4, requiring all property to be taxed in proportion to its value, and is a proper exercise of the police power.

T. B. Haughawout, for appellant. J. W. Halliburton and J. R. Shields, for respondent.

BRACE, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Jasper county on an appeal from the judgment of the recorder's court of the city of Carthage, imposing a fine upon the defendant for keeping a dog without having obtained a license from said city for so doing, in violation of the ordinances thereof. The case has been certified here from the Kansas City court of appeals as involving a constitutional question.

By section 11, art. 5, of the charter of the city of Carthage, (Sess. Acts 1875, p. 169,) it is provided that the city shall have power "to tax, regulate, restrain, and prohibit the running at large of dogs or cats, and provide for the impounding or destruction of either, or both, or all of them, when found running at large contrary to ordinance." The power granted in this section is to tax dogs, and regulate dogs, and is not limited simply to the power to restrain and prohibit dogs from running at large; and the question is, can the city exercise the power to tax or regulate dogs by requiring the owner or keeper of a dog to pay a specific sum for a license to keep such dog within the city limits, or, in other words, by imposing a tax per capita upon dogs, by way of a license? There being an express grant of power to regulate, there can be no question as to the power in the city to regulate by way of a license, for which a specific sum may be charged, unless the exercise of the power is precluded by the constitutional provision requiring all property to be taxed in proportion to its value. Const. art. 10, § 4. Taxation may be for the purpose of raising revenue, or for the purpose of regulation. Where for the purpose of regulation, it is an exercise of the police power of the state. They are both distinct co-existent powers in the state, and either or both may be exercised through a municipal corporation. In this case, by the terms of the charter,...