City of Prichard v. Richardson

• Citation: 238 Ala. 646,193 So. 319
• Decision Date: 18 January 1940
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 73.
• Parties: CITY OF PRICHARD ET AL. v. RICHARDSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

193 So. 319

238 Ala. 646

CITY OF PRICHARD ET AL. v. RICHARDSON.

1 Div. 73.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 18, 1940

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Claude A. Grayson, Judge.

Bill to enjoin enforcement of municipal ordinances by Cammie Richardson against the City of Prichard and certain individuals as Mayor and members of the General Council thereof. From decree overruling demurrer to the bill, the respondents appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

Geo. A Sossaman, of Mobile, for appellants.

Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellee.

BROWN Justice.

The appellee, engaged in the business of operating a gasoline filling station and selling gasoline and other automotive fuels, outside the corporate limits, but within the police jurisdiction, of the appellant municipality, City of Prichard, filed this bill against said municipality to restrain and enjoin them from enforcing two certain ordinances which together levy an excise or privilege tax in an amount equal to one cent per gallon of all such gasoline or like fuel sold.

An order made by one of the Judges of the Circuit Court upon the filing of the bill granted the injunction, and the defendants appeared and filed a demurrer to the bill, which the court overruled, hence this appeal.

The ground on which the complainant rests her right to relief is thus stated in the bill: "complainant avers that each of said ordinances referred to in the next preceding paragraph is unreasonable, unconstitutional and void for that it does not exact a license of those operating filling stations without the city limits, but within the police jurisdiction according to the need of said business for regulation, but instead of classifying such business according to such need and so on a proper basis, the respondent City of Prichard for the purpose and with the intent of raising revenue for the City, and not for the purpose or with the intent of regulating said business under the police power, arbitrarily fixed the license on those conducting said business within the police jurisdiction, but without the city limits, at a flat rate of one-half of the amount required by the ordinances referred to in paragraph 3 hereof, for carrying on the same character of business within the city limits."

The ordinances require monthly reports of sales and monthly payments of the tax and denounce the doing of business within the territory, each day, as a separate offense, subjecting the violator thereof to fine of not exceeding $100, and imprisonment of not more than six months.

The ordinances, however, provide that the applicant for a license, if made at the beginning of the year, may deposit as an advance payment the sum of $25, and if made after the 1st of July, one-half of that sum, and if the aggregate monthly payments do not equal or exceed the sum so deposited, the excess of the deposit will be...