City of Independence v. Cleveland

Decision Date11 March 1902
Citation67 S.W. 216,167 Mo. 384
PartiesCITY OF INDEPENDENCE v. CLEVELAND.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from criminal court Jackson county; Samuel Davis, Special Judge.

M. J. Cleveland was convicted of violation of an ordinance, and appeals. Reversed.

Wollman, Solomon & Copper, and Flournoy & Flournoy, for appellant. Sam W. Hilt, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

Defendant was convicted in the police court of Independence, Jackson county, Mo., a city of the third class, and fined in the sum of $50, for unlawfully conducting in said city an agency for a steam laundry without first having a license therefor, as required by the ordinances of said city. He appealed to the criminal court of said county, where upon a trial de novo before the court, a jury being waived, he was again convicted, and a fine assessed against him in the sum of $30. After unsuccessful motion for new trial, he appeals to this court. The ordinance upon which this prosecution is based is as follows: "Ordinance No. 27. License Required for Sundry Occupations. An ordinance to license, tax and regulate the different classes of business, employments, occupations, agencies, public halls and amusements in the city of Independence, Missouri. Section 1. No person, firm, company, corporation or association, without first having obtained a license therefor, shall, in the city of Independence, engage, carry on or exercise any of the following classes of business, occupations, employments, agencies or amusements, and the charges for such license shall be as follows: * * * Agents of steam laundries, fifteen dollars per year. * * *" "Sec. 7. Any person in this city who shall violate any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than five dollars, nor more than one hundred dollars." It was admitted that M. J. Cleveland, the appellant, was the agent of Woolf Bros. Steam Laundry, located in Kansas City, Mo., and had been such agent since the date of the ordinance in question, and that there were and had been during said time two steam laundries located in said city of Independence. The evidence showed that defendant had never taken out a license to act as the agent for a steam laundry; that the ordinance introduced by respondent was the only ordinance of the city relative to laundries, and that there was no ordinance of the city putting a license tax on laundries located at Independence; that there was no attempt on the part of the city to levy any tax on the agents of laundries located at Independence.

There are but two points presented by this appeal, both of which are raised by the motion for a new trial, and in no other way. The first challenges the power of the city of Independence by its charter to impose a license tax on agents of steam laundries. The argument of defendant is, as we understand it, that the city has no power to levy a license tax upon steam laundries themselves, and is therefore without authority to impose such a tax upon their agents. The only authority which the city of Independence has to levy and collect a license tax upon agents, trades, and occupations is to be found in section 107, p. 89, Acts 1893. It reads as follows: "The council shall have power and authority to levy and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Hight v. City of Harrisonville
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 29 July 1931
    ...and not merely convenient powers. St. Louis v. Dreisocrner, 243 Mo. 217; St. Louis v. Bell Tel. Co., 96 Mo. 416; Independence v. Cleveland, 167 Mo. 384. (d) Specific methods of paying for electric plants being provided by statute such methods are exclusive. Tarkio v. Clark, 186 Mo. 285; Car......
  • Carpenter v. Reliance Realty Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 15 December 1903
    ... ... Louis December 15, 1903 ...           Appeal ... from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. H. D. Wood, Judge ...          REVERSED ... AND REMANDED ... 494] granted, or essential to the declared purpose of the ... corporation. City of Independence v. Cleveland, 167 ... Mo. 384, 67 S.W. 216; Kirkwood v. Meramec Highlands ... Co., 94 Mo.App ... ...
  • Hight v. City of Harrisonville
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 29 July 1931
    ... ... St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217; St. Louis ... v. Bell Tel. Co., 96 Mo. 416; Independence v ... Cleveland, 167 Mo. 384. (d) Specific methods of paying ... for electric plants being provided by statute such methods ... are exclusive ... ...
  • City of St. Louis v. Baskowitz
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 4 March 1918
    ...of whatsoever character. R. S. 1909, sec. 9580; Kansas City v. Grush, 151 Mo. 128; Fulton v. Craighead, 164 Mo.App. 90; Independence v. Cleveland, 167 Mo. 384; Joplin v. Leckie, 78 Mo.App. 12; Trenton v. Clayton, 50 Mo.App. 535; St. Louis v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; Knapp v. Kansas City, 48 Mo......
  • 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