City of St. Louis v. Spiegel

• Decision Date: 28 October 1884
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant, v. A. SPIEGEL, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

16 Mo.App. 210

CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant,

v.A. SPIEGEL, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Oct. 28, 1884.

.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. NOONAN, J.

Reversed and remanded.

LEVERETT BELL and ASHLEY C. CLOVER, for the appellant.

J. C. MCGINNIS, for the respondent: Wherever license fees are imposed for the main purpose of revenue they are in effect taxes.--Cooley Const. Lim., pars. 281, 495; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; The State v. Hoboken, 23 N. Y. L. 1869; Dill. on Mun. Corp., pars. 291, 295, 609; Glasgow v. Rowse, 43 Mo. 479; The City of St. Louis v. Spiegel, 75 Mo. 145. The city of St. Louis can exercise only such powers as are expressly conferred in its charter, or such as by necessary implication grow out of the powers directly conferred.-- Savannah v. Hartridge, 8 Ga. 23-26; Mays v. Cincinnati, 1 McCook (O.), 273; Burr. on Tax., sect. 128; The City of St. Louis v. Boatmen's Insurance and Trust Co., 47 Mo. 153; The City of St. Louis v. Green, 7 Mo. App. 468, and 70 Mo. 562.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action begun in the police court of the city of St. Louis, against respondent, for violation of ordinance No. 12,508 in this, that he kept a meat-shop within said city, at 725 Chouteau Avenue, on October 8, 1883, and other days, without a license.

On trial anew in the court of criminal correction, it was shown that defendant was, at the date named, keeping a meat-shop and selling meat, at the place named, within the old city limits.

Plaintiff, against defendant's objection introduced in evidence ordinance 12,508, and also 11,668, which was before this court for consideration in City v. Spiegel (8 Mo. App. 478).

The ground of defendant's objection to ordinance 12,508 was, that it was ultra vires of the city, and in violation of section 3, article X, of the constitution of the state, because not uniform, and that it is unreasonable and partial. The jurisdiction of the police court, in such matters, was shown.

Defendant, against plaintiff's objection, showed that the actual expense of issuing a license is one dollar; that butchers in the public markets are not required to pay a license; and that the privilege of peddling meat from wagons in the new city limits is worth about seven hundred dollars a year.

The court then found defendant not guilty and rendered judgment accordingly.

Ordinance 11,668 established a license tax upon meatshops of $100 in the old limits and $25 in the new limits; we held, in the case above cited, that this might be done. But in this, it seems, we were wrong; for on appeal ( City v. Spiegel, 75 Mo. 145), the supreme court held that this was an unconstitutional discrimination between the amounts of taxation imposed upon the same class of subjects.

The ordinance 12,508 which defendant is charged with violating, amends the objectionable feature of the original ordinance by fixing the license tax on meat-shops throughout the city at fifty dollars per annum for each shop.

1. It is now contended by appellant that the city can not tax meat shops. We held, however, in the case cited above, that this could be done; and our decision as to this is not in any way shaken by the ruling of the supreme court in City v. Spiegel, or by anything said in that opinion. It is not necessary to add anything to what is said by this court in City v. Spiegel (8 Mo. App. 478.) As to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, however, we may refer to our more recent opinion in City v. Herthel (14 Mo. App. 467). These two cases dispose, so far as this court is concerned, of the objection that no power to tax meat-shops is given under the existing city charter.

2. The first secti...