City of Louisville v. Pooley

• Decision Date: 18 January 1910
• Citation: 124 S.W. 315
• Parties: CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. POOLEY (two cases).
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

124 S.W. 315

CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. POOLEY (two cases).

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 18, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Criminal Division.

"To be officially reported."

Actions by the City of Louisville against F. R. Pooley. From the judgments, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Percy N. Booth, for appellant.

D. R Castleman, Pryor, Sapinsky & Castleman, W. L. Doolan, and Stanley R. Wolf, for appellee.

CLAY C.

These two appeals are prosecuted by the city of Louisville from judgments of the Jefferson circuit court holding unconstitutional sections 63 and 64 of the license ordinance of the city of Louisville. Those sections are as follows:

"Sec 63. Every person, firm or corporation engaged in the business of lending or advancing money (or negotiating for the loan or advance of money) on chattel mortgages, shall pay a license of one thousand dollars per year.

"Sec. 64. Every person, firm or corporation engaged in the business of lending or advancing money (or negotiating for the loan or advance of money) on assignment of salaries or wages, due or to become due, or discounting salaries or wages, due or to become due, shall pay a license of one thousand dollars per year."

While it is true that the amount of a license fee imposed as a tax is ordinarily a question for the taxing power, and the courts will not interfere with its discretion, yet this court is committed to the doctrine that this rule is subject to the limitation that the tax imposed should not amount to a prohibition of any useful or legitimate occupation. Hall v. Commonwealth, Use, etc., 101 Ky. 382, 41 S.W. 2, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 578; Fiscal Court of Owen County et al. v F. & A. Cox Co., 117 S.W. 296, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83. There can be no doubt that the business of loaning money on salaries or chattels is a useful, legitimate occupation. In every community there are many persons who have no personal credit, and, in case of an emergency, they have no means of raising money except by a pledge of their salaries or chattels. In such cases the company loaning money on salaries or chattels serves a useful, and, oftentimes, a most beneficent purpose. It may be, however, and doubtless is true, that such companies frequently take advantage of the needy circumstances of those desiring to borrow, and exact a rate of interest far in excess of that allowed by law. If this be the case, we take it that such companies should be regulated by statute so as to remedy the evil. The taxing power should not be used to drive them out of existence. Furthermore, we are unable to see how a burdensome tax could in any manner relieve the borrower of oppression. If placed at an unreasonable sum, the effect would be to drive out a number of smaller concerns, and thereby stifle all competition and create a monopoly in the few who are able to pay the tax. In such a case there would be still greater oppression, instead of...