City of Columbus v. Hartford Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1888
• Citation: 41 N.W. 140,25 Neb. 83
• Parties: CITY OF COLUMBUS v. HARTFORD INS. CO.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

25 Neb. 83

41 N.W. 140

CITY OF COLUMBUS

v.HARTFORD INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Dec. 13, 1888.

Syllabus by the Court.

The provisions of chapter 66 of the Session Laws of 1887, amending section 38 of an act to provide a system of revenue, being chapter 77 of the Compiled Statutes of 1885, were not intended to exempt insurance companies from the payment of a license tax on their occupation or business, within the limits of cities of the second class and villages, when imposed by ordinance; the purpose of the exemption in the latter clause of the section being only to relieve such companies from taxes, fees, or licenses under the laws of the state, which might be imposed by general law under the provisions of section 1, art, 9, of the constitution.

Error to district court, Platte county; POST, Judge.

Action by the city of Columbus against the Hartford Insurance Company for the purpose of collecting an occupation tax. Judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff brings error.Sullivan & Reeder, for plaintiff in error.

George G. Bowman, for defendant in error.

REESE, C. J.

This action was instituted for the purpose of collecting from the defendant an occupation tax of five dollars assessed against it under the ordinances of the city of Columbus, which is alleged in the petition to be a city of the second class, having a population of more than 2,000 and less than 5,000 inhabitants, and duly incorporated under the laws of the state. A general demurrer was interposed to the petition, which was sustained by the district court, and the case dismissed.

As presented by the briefs of counsel the only question for the decision is whether chapter 66 of the Session Laws of 1887 by its provisions forbids the collection of taxes of the character named under the provisions of subdivision 8, § 69, art. 1, c. 14, Comp. St. 1885, as amended by subdivision 8, § 1, c. 12, Sess. Laws 1887. Chapter 66, Sess. Laws 1887, and as carried forward into the Compiled Statutes of 1887 as section numbered 38 of the revenue act, (chapter 77,) is as follows: “Each and every insurance company transacting business in this state shall be taxed upon the excess of premiums received over losses and ordinary expenses incurred within this state during the year previous to the year of listing, in the county where the agent conducts the business, properly apportioned by the company, at the same rate that all other personal property is taxed; and the agent shall render the list, and be personally liable for the tax; and if he refuse to render the list, or make affidavit that the same is correct, the amount may be assessed according to the best knowledge and discretion of the assessor. Insurance companies shall be subject to any other taxes, fees, or licenses, under the laws of this state, except taxes on real estate and the fees imposed by section 32 of an act regulating insurance companies, passed February 25, 1873.” As shown by the section of the amended act, the new or amended section is an amendment of the general revenue laws in this state, and by its terms has no reference to any other subject. But it is contended by defendant in error that the latter clause of the new act, which provides that insurance companies shall be...