City of Louisville v. Louisville Tin & Stove Co.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1916
• Parties: CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. LOUISVILLE TIN & STOVE CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

186 S.W. 124

170 Ky. 557

CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. LOUISVILLE TIN & STOVE CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 2, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, Second Division.

Suit by the City of Louisville against the Louisville Tin & Stove Company, etc., to recover taxes. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded.

Lawrence S. Poston, Pendleton Beckley, and Geo. Cary Tabb, all of Louisville, for appellant.

Dodd &amp Dodd, of Louisville, for appellee.

CLAY C.

This is a suit by the city of Louisville against the Louisville Tin &amp Stove Company to recover taxes for the years 1908 to 1911 inclusive, on its real estate and plant located on the north side of Maple street. The chancellor held that the property was exempt under an ordinance of the city of Louisville enacted July 29, 1898, pursuant to section 170 of the Constitution and section 2980a of the Kentucky Statutes authorizing municipalities to exempt manufacturing establishments from municipal taxation for a period not exceeding five years as an inducement to their location. The city appeals.

The evidence develops the following facts: The defendant was incorporated in September, 1888, with a capital stock of $20,000, and from that time on has conducted a stove and tin business in the city of Louisville. Its first place of business was at 621 Main street, where were located its warerooms, its buying and selling department, and tinshop. The business grew and it became necessary from time to time to have additional quarters. To that end it acquired two buildings on Eighth street, in which it maintained additional warerooms and its tinshops. Their stock being large, they subsequently procured other places for storage and warehouse purposes. On May 18, 1903, defendant's articles of incorporation were amended so as to authorize an increase in its capital stock to $200,000. In October, 1905, and January 1906, it acquired the lot on Maple street which is involved in this controversy, and erected thereon very large and extensive improvements at a cost of about $90,000. The officers of the company say that prior to September, 1906, the business conducted by defendant was that of a jobber. It bought its tinware and stoves from wholesalers and manufacturers and sold them as a jobber to retail merchants. During the year 1906 the company, finding that its profit was small, because of the great competition in the business and the excessive prices which they had to pay to the manufacturers and wholesalers from whom they made their purchases, determined to make arrangements to manufacture its own stoves and wares. To that end it purchased the lot on Maple street and installed the necessary machinery. From that time on it proceeded to manufacture steel ranges, cook stoves, heating stoves, hot-blast heaters, airtight heaters, hot tomale heaters, ranges, stove pipe, refrigerators, ice chests, buckets, water coolers, syrup pails, oil cans,...