City of Independence v. Cleveland
Decision Date | 11 March 1902 |
Citation | 67 S.W. 216,167 Mo. 384 |
Parties | CITY OF INDEPENDENCE v. CLEVELAND. |
Court | Missouri 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.
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: * * *" 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-
Hight v. City of Harrisonville
...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.
... ... 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
... ... 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
...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......