Cook v. City of Memphis

• Decision Date: 23 April 1895
• Citation: Cook v. City of Memphis, 30 S.W. 742, 94 Tenn. 692 (Tenn. 1895)
• Parties: COOK v. CITY OF MEMPHIS. BURKE v. SAME.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

30 S.W. 742

94 Tenn. 692

COOK v. CITY OF MEMPHIS.

BURKE v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 23, 1895

Error to circuit court, Shelby county; L. H. Estes, Judge.

J. B Cook and C. C. Burke were fined for failing to take out city licenses as architects, and bring error. Affirmed.

T. A Ryan, for plaintiffs in error.

Metcalf & Walker, for defendants in error.

WILKES J.

The defendants are architects, and were each arrested and fined $25 for failing to take out city license for 1892, and the only question presented is whether they are liable for a privilege tax upon their occupation for that year. Defendants' contention is that the act of the general assembly of Tennessee passed at the extra session, 1891 (page 50), repealed the act of 1889 (chapter 130), and all other revenue acts prior in date, and inasmuch as the Acts of 1891 Extra Session, omitted to tax the occupation of an architect as a privilege, as had been done under chapter 130, Acts 1889, there was no law in force in 1892 making the occupation of architect a taxable privilege. In this contention we think counsel is in error. The act of 1891 (Extra Sess. p. 50) is entitled "An act to amend chapter 130 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1889 entitled 'An act to provide revenue for the state of Tennessee and the counties thereof."' It was not the purpose of the acts of 1889 or 1891 to provide for anything else except revenue for state and county purposes, and they did not in any way refer to taxes for purposes of municipal corporations. By the act of 1879 (chapter 11) the general assembly passed the taxing district act, which was afterwards amended in 1883 (chapter 10), and by other acts. The purpose of these acts, as shown by their captions and provisions, was to create taxing districts, and provide means of local government of the same and by the latter act, among the list of taxable privileges, architects were named, and this act was in force when the tax accrued, in 1892, and was not in any wise affected by the acts passed subsequently to provide state and county revenue. Municipal taxes are not taxes for state and county purposes, and are not included under the terms of an act to provide state and county revenue. Mayor, etc., v. Lewis, 12 Lea, 180. This same ruling was made in the unreported case of Taxing Dist. v. Pacific Exp. Co. (decided by this court May 28, 1888) 30 S.W. ___. The judgment in that case has this recital: "That chapter 5 of the Acts of the Extra Session of 1885 did not operate to repeal section 13 of chapter 96 of the Acts of 1881 (a taxing district act), by which a privilege...