City of St. Joseph v. Ernst

• Decision Date: 04 June 1888
• Citation: 95 Mo. 360,8 S.W. 558
• Parties: CITY OF ST. JOSEPH v. ERNST.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 558

95 Mo. 360

CITY OF ST. JOSEPH v. ERNST.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 4, 1888.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND TAXATION — LICENSE OF INSURANCE COMPANY.

Under Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 4644, delegating to cities power "to license, tax, and regulate * * * insurance companies," an ordinance requiring such companies to procure a license at a cost of $50 per year to carry on their business is authorized and valid, though a tax on their net income is also imposed.

Appeal from criminal court, Buchanan county; SILAS WOODSON, Judge.

The defendant, Charles F. Ernst, was tried and fined $100 for failure to pay the license tax imposed upon insurance companies, and appeals from the judgment against him.

B. R. Vineyard, for appellant. Ryan & Macdonald, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

The plaintiff is a city of the second class, under the general laws of this state. By an ordinance, duly enacted, it is provided that no person or corporation shall carry on any kind of insurance business in the city, in person or by agent, without a license for such purpose. The amount required to be paid for a license for one year is $50. The same ordinance makes it unlawful for any person to act as agent for any company not having paid the license. The offender is declared to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, to be fined not less than $100. The Fireman's Fund Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of California, and for many years has transacted business in the city of St. Joseph. The insurance company neglected and refused to pay the license required by the ordinance, and, notwithstanding this neglect and refusal, the defendant, in November, 1887, solicited business for and acted as the agent of the company. For this violation of the ordinance he was fined in the recorder's court. On appeal to the criminal court, he was again fined in a like amount, and he appealed to this court, and insists that the ordinance is void for want of authority in the city to enact it.

As the case stands here, it must be taken that the city collects the amount charged for the license for revenue purposes. The issuing the license is therefore not the mere exercise of a police regulation, but the exercise of the power of taxation; and this, it is insisted, the city cannot do by way of a license tax. By the fifteenth paragraph of section 4644, Rev. St. 1879, the mayor and common council have power, by ordinance, "to license, tax, and regulate * * * insurance companies and insurance agents," etc. Even the words "to license" may imply the power to tax, when such is the manifest intention; but, taken disconnected and alone, they will not generally confer that authority. City of St. Louis v. Insurance Co., 47 Mo. 150. But here the power to tax, as well as to license, is given in express terms; and there can be no doubt but the city may collect a tax for revenue, by way of a license, unless there is some other provision of the law which requires us to give a different construction to the words of the charter law before quoted. Sections 6060-6062, Rev. St., concerning the taxation of insurance companies, make it the duty of every...