City of Central v. Axton
Decision Date | 09 July 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 19977,19977 |
Parties | The CITY OF CENTRAL, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. William L. AXTON, individually, and doing business as the Glory Hole Tavern, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Albert B. Dawkins, City Atty., Denver, for City of Central.
Fugate, Mitchem, McGinley & Hoffman, Richard L. Whitworth, Denver, for defendant in error.
This writ of error involves the question of whether the City of Central was authorized under its charter to enact an ordinance imposing an occuaptional tax on the business of William L. Axton. The parties are here in the same order as in the trial court where the City was plaintiff and Axton defendant. We will so refer to the parties
The City was incorporated by virtue of a charter granted by the Territorial Legislature in 1864. Under C.R.S. '53, 139-1-1, a city or town incorporated previous to July 3, 1877, can choose to retain its charter organization and operate in accordance therewith; or under C.R.S. '53, 139-8-1, can choose to reorganize under the general statutes pertaining to cities and towns. The City has chosen to retain its charter and such charter is the sole source of authority under which it operates.
Article V of the City's charter provides in pertinent part that the city council shall have authority:
Pursuant to the above charter provision the city council on March 1, 1957, enacted Ordinance No. 133 entitled 'An Ordinance Establishing An Occupation Tax In and For The City of Central.' The ordinance provides in pertinent part as follows:
* * *
* * *
The defendant Axton operates a business in the City known as the Glory Hole Tavern. The premises on which this business is operated consists of a room containing a bar and tables, and an adjoining room containing a service bar and additional tables. In both rooms alcoholic beverages and food are sold by Axton to patrons. On April 15, 1960, Axton received notice from the City of an occupational tax levy of $200.00 for the year 1960. Upon Axton's subsequent refusal to pay the tax the City brought this action. Its complaint alleged, inter alia, that although failure to pay the occupational tax entitled the City to recover three times the amount of the tax plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs, the City was only claiming the sum of $300.00. After various proceedings not pertinent to this writ of error the county court on June 20, 1961, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in which the court found that Axton 'conducts a restaurant and incidentally sells liquor by the drink or conducts a tavern, which incidentally sells food' and that 'the Charter does not give express authority to tax either.' The complaint was accordingly dismissed and a motion for a new trial denied.
The sole issue for determination here is whether the City is authorized by its charter to impose an occupational tax on Axton's business. In their briefs both parties raise additional issues pertaining to the constitutionality of the ordinance under which the tax in question was imposed. The arguments addressed to these constitutional issues proceed from the assumption that the charter did confer authority upon the City to tax the type of business conducted by Axton. Although these issues were also raised at the trial, the court refrained from passing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Murr v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City & Cnty. of Denver
...or necessarily implied. Cook v. City & Cty. of Denver , 68 P.3d 586, 588 (Colo. App. 2003) ; accord City of Central v. Axton , 150 Colo. 414, 419, 373 P.2d 300, 302-03 (1962) ; City of Englewood v. Englewood Career Serv. Bd. , 793 P.2d 585, 586 (Colo. App. 1989). ¶22 We construe a charter a......
-
City of Central v. Axton
...that the trial court 'reinstate the complaint and proceed to trial upon the issues formed by the pleadings.' See City of Central v. Axton, 150 Colo. 414, 373 P.2d 300. In the interim Central City brought similar actions in the police court in and for Central City against all of the other de......
-
Droste v. Board of County Com'Rs of Pitkin
...that local governments have incidental powers necessary to effectuate the express delegation of authority, see City of Central v. Axton, 150 Colo. 414, 373 P.2d 300 (1962), the authority to issue moratoria that the court recognizes today is so limitless that it can only be described as a ge......
-
Service Oil Co. v. Rhodus
...in addition to those expressly granted, has powers necessarily implied in order to carry out the granted powers. City of Central v. Axton, 150 Colo. 414, 373 P.2d 300; City of Golden v. Ford, 141 Colo. 472, 348 P.2d 951. The power to zone cannot be effective without the power to ultimately,......