City of Kansas City v. Grush

• Decision Date: 26 June 1899
• Citation: 52 S.W. 286,151 Mo. 128
• Parties: CITY OF KANSAS CITY v. GRUSH.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

52 S.W. 286

151 Mo. 128

CITY OF KANSAS CITY v. GRUSH.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 26, 1899.

LICENSES — FACTORS — OCCUPATION TAX — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — UNIFORMITY OF TAXATION.

1. Under an ordinance requiring "commission merchants and produce dealers" to obtain a license, a produce dealer must obtain a license, though he is not engaged in the business of commission merchant.

2. An ordinance requiring produce dealers to pay a license tax not required of other merchants is void, under Const. art. 10, § 3, which provides that taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.

Appeal from criminal court, Jackson county; John W. Wofford, Judge.

W. L. Grush was convicted of carrying on the business of produce dealer without obtaining a license, and he appeals. Reversed.

Defendant was prosecuted and convicted in the criminal court of Jackson county for the breach of an ordinance of said city entitled "An ordinance regulating and defining the amount of license to be paid by artists, agents, hotels and others." Section 502 of said ordinance provides that "no person or corporation shall carry on or engage in the following occupations, trades, or business in the City of Kansas without a license therefor from said city and the charge for such license shall be as follows: * * * Commission merchants and produce dealers, $50." By section 536 it is made a misdemeanor to violate said ordinance, and a fine of not less than $10 and not more than $500 is imposed. The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. The defendant is, and was at the date of filing the information, a dealer in produce in Kansas City, and was a produce dealer engaged in the business of buying and selling potatoes, apples, and vegetables of all kinds, — a dealer in general produce, — and had and has a store and fixed place of business. It was further admitted that the city charges and collects no license from grocers, other than a merchant's license, and that the defendant had paid his merchant's license. No license tax is levied and collected on merchants generally, other than required by article 3, §§ 550 and 551, of the Revised Ordinances of said city, which the defendant has paid. An ordinance of said city (No. 5299) was also read in evidence, which provided: "Section 1. No person shall sell or offer for sale, barter, or exchange, any car-load lots, or any less quantity, of fruit, vegetables, or farm produce, butter, cheese, eggs, game, or poultry, contained in any railroad car or in any railroad freight depot or warehouse within Kansas City, Missouri, without first obtaining an annual license to engage in such business, under a penalty of not less than $25 nor more than $100 for each offense: provided, this section shall not apply to any farmer, gardener, fruit or vine grower, orchard or vineyard, nor to any commission merchant having a store or established place of business in this city. Section 2. Every person, before engaging in the business or occupation mentioned in the preceding section, shall pay an annual license fee of fifty dollars, in the manner provided by the ordinance of said city concerning licenses." The defendant, among other instructions, requested the court to declare the law to be that, under section 502 of article 1 of the ordinances, a license was not required of one who is a simple produce dealer, and that, from the whole of said section, the words "commission merchant and produce dealers" are to be construed as meaning those who are both commission merchants and produce dealers, and not as meaning those who are either produce dealers or commission merchants. The criminal court refused to so declare the law, but held that it meant commission merchants or produce dealers. The defendant then prayed the court to declare the law to be that, "construing the words `commission merchants and produce dealers,' in section 502 of article 1 of the ordinances of Kansas City, Mo., to mean either commission merchants or produce dealers, the portion of said ordinance requiring a produce dealer to pay a license of $50 is unconstitutional and void, as not being a uniform tax upon the same taxable class of taxable subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax." The declaration of law the court also refused to give. This last ruling unquestionably involved the construction of section 3, art. 10, of the constitution of this state, and hence this court has jurisdiction to determine the appeal in this case.

Hamner, Hardon & Hamner, for appellant. Chas. E. Burnham and Darius A. Brown, for respondent.

GANTT, P. J. (after stating the facts).

1. Proceeding in the order of the declarations of law asked and refused, can the contention of defendant be sustained, that, conceding the constitutionality of the ordinance, a produce dealer who was not also a commission merchant...