City of Farmington v. Rutherford

Decision Date29 April 1902
Citation68 S.W. 83,94 Mo. App. 328
PartiesCITY OF FARMINGTON v. RUTHERFORD.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from circuit court, St. Francois county; James D. Fox, Judge.

J. B. Rutherford was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Farmington, and appeals. Affirmed.

The city of Farmington is a city of the fourth class. Its charter confers upon the mayor and common council power to levy and collect a license tax on insurance companies and insurance agents doing business in the city. See section 5978, Rev. St. 1899. In the exercise of this authority the mayor and common council passed the following ordinance:

"Section 1. Every person, firm, company or association or corporation who shall in this city, in person or by agent, engage in or carry on any kind of life, fire, accident, marine or other insurance business, shall pay to the proper city authority, a license tax of five dollars per annum. Each and every agent of one or more persons, firms, companies, associations or corporations, engaged in or carrying on any kind of insurance business in this city shall pay to the city collector a license tax of five dollars per annum.

"Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person within the limits of the city of Farmington to act as agent or adjuster of any insurance company, firm, association or corporation which has failed, neglected or refused to pay the license tax imposed by the preceding section of this ordinance, and any person, firm, company or companies who have failed, neglected or refused to pay the license tax as above provided shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five nor more than one hundred dollars. Any person in this city who shall engage in carrying on the business of the insurance agent without first obtaining license therefor, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not exceeding one hundred dollars.

"Sec. 3. Any person, company or firm in this city who shall receipt for any money on account of, or for any contracts of insurance made by him, or any insurance company, corporation or association, or who shall receive or receipt for any money for any other person to be transmitted to any such insurance company, association or corporation, or who shall effect or place or cause to be placed any insurance or insurance risks in any insurance company, association or corporation, is hereby declared to be an insurance agent."

Appellant was prosecuted to a conviction and final judgment in the circuit court of St. Francois county for a violation of this ordinance. The specific charge was that he had,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • City of Troy v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 1903
    ... ... City of Springfield v. Smith, 138 Mo. 645, 40 S. W. 757, 37 L. R. A. 446, 60 Am. St. Rep. 569; Farmington v. Rutherford, 94 Mo. App. 328, 68 S. W. 83; St. Joseph v. Ernst, 95 Mo. 360, 8 S. W. 558; Walker v. Springfield, 94 Ill. 364; Wyandotte v. Corrigan, ... ...
  • City of Troy v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 1903
    ... ... property tax and did not name agents as subject to its ... penalties. City of Springfield v. Smith, 138 Mo ... 645, 40 S.W. 757; Farmington v. Rutherford, 94 ... Mo.App. 328, 68 S.W. 83; St. Joseph v. Emert, 95 Mo ... 360; Walker v. Springfield, 94 Ill. 364; ... Wyandotte v. Corrigan, ... ...
  • City of Monett v. Hall
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 1907
    ... ... Springfield v. Smith, 138 Mo. 645; Spring-field ... v. Hubble, 89 Mo.App. 379; Troy v. Harris, 102 ... Mo.App. 51; Farmington v. Rutherford, 94 Mo.App ... 328. (3) There is nothing in the point attempted to be made ... in this case by respondent that the prosecution ... ...
  • City of Monett v. Hall
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 1907
    ...469; City of St. Joseph v. Ernst, 95 Mo. 360, 8 S. W. 558; City of Troy v. Harris, 102 Mo. App. 51, 76 S. W. 662; City of Farmington v. Rutherford, 94 Mo. App. 328, 68 S. W. 83. The ordinance being valid, it was the duty of the Hall Grocery Company to pay the occupation tax, and to procure ......
  • 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