Curry v. Reeves

Decision Date06 June 1940
Docket Number3 Div. 312.
Citation195 So. 428,240 Ala. 14
PartiesCURRY, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, ET AL. v. REEVES.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, in Equity, Montgomery County; Eugene W Carter, Judge.

Bill for declaratory judgment by J. W. Reeves, individually and as owner of Reeves Feed Store, against John C. Curry, as Commissioner of Revenue, and Thomas S. Lawson, as Attorney General, to determine whether sales made by complainant require collection of the tax under the Sales Tax Act. From a decree favorable to complainant, respondents appeal.

Reversed and rendered.

Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John W. Lapsley and J. Edw Thornton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

B. M. Bains, of Oneonta, for appellee.

GARDNER Chief Justice.

Complainant seeks to have declared his exemption from the general provisions of the sales tax (General Acts 1939, p. 16) as to "baby chicks" sold which were hatched from the eggs produced by his hens on his farm. They were hatched by an incubator in his store at Oneonta where he presumably resided and conducted a wholesale and retail feed business.

The exemption feature of the act (Section V, sub-section f, General Acts 1939, p. 19) was several times amended (General Acts 1939, p. 228, approved March 14, 1939; General Acts 1939, p. 498, approved September 13, 1939; General Acts 1939, p. 529, approved September 13, 1939) but we are persuaded these amendments were for purposes other than those relating to poultry or poultry products, and that in fact no substantial change in the exemption as to this subject was intended from that contained in the original act approved February 8, 1939.

True, in the amendatory acts approved on the same day (September 13, 1939) in the concluding sentence of subdivision "f" there are in one of the acts the words "poultry or poultry products" and in the other the words "poultry products" only, but this is to our minds a clear inadvertent omission, as all the amendatory acts considered tend to show, and is properly so to be treated here. Moreover, the sole purpose of the concluding sentence was merely to emphasize the fact that for such exemption to obtain the gross proceeds of the sale must be of "products of the farm" and not otherwise.

Subdivision "f" exempts "the gross proceeds of sales of * * * poultry and other products of the farm * * * when in the original state of production, or condition of preparation for sale, when such sale or sales are made by the producer or members of his immediate family or for him by those employed by him to assist in the production thereof". Then follows the provision against the exemption of gross proceeds of the sale of poultry or poultry products, "when not products of the farm".

The case of State v. Kennerly and Patterson, 98 N.C. 657, 4 S.E. 47, 48, contains some discussion of the meaning of the words "products of the farm", but we think the case of Trustees of Rochester v. Pettinger, 17 Wend. 265 from the New York Court bears closer analogy to the instant case and is helpful in determining the question here presented. There a farmer was exempt from the law as to sale of his meats or other products of the farm. Though the defendant in that case owned and operated a farm, yet he also owned and operated as a regular business a butcher shop, and the holding was that the meat sold in the butcher shop was not within the exempt class though it came from the butcher's own farm.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • State v. Wertheimer Bag Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1949
    ...the producer or members of his immediate family * * *' is designed to benefit the farmer alone. And such was the holding in Curry v. Reeves, 240 Ala. 14, 195 So. 428. Subsection (f) was similarly construed, as regards the provision exempting the gross proceeds of livestock, until it was ame......
  • Dept. of Revenue v. Nat. Peanut Festival Assoc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • November 7, 2008
    ...favor of the taxing power. Title Guarantee Loan and Trust Co. v. Hamilton, 238 Ala. 602, 193 So. 107, 108 [1940]; Curry v. Reeves, 240 Ala. 14, 15, 195 So. 428, 430 [ (1940) ].' "Brundidge Milling Co. v. State, 45 Ala. App. 208, 210, 228 So.2d 475, 477 (1969). However, such exemption clause......
  • EX PARTE EMERALD MOUNTAIN EXPRESSWAY BRIDGE
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 14, 2003
    ...of the taxing power. Title Guarantee Loan and Trust Co. v. Hamilton, 238 Ala. 602, [604,] 193 So. 107, 108 [1940]; Curry v. Reeves, 240 Ala. 14, 15, 195 So. 428, 430 [1940].'" Flav-O-Rich, Inc. v. City of Birmingham, 476 So.2d 46, 48 (Ala.1985) (emphasis added) (quoting Brundidge Milling Co......
  • Champion v. McLean
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1957
    ...clear and unambiguous terms; it ought not to be deduced from language of doubtful import.' * * *' (Emphasis supplied.) Curry v. Reeves, 240 Ala. 14, 15, 195 So. 428, 430. Appellees appear to concede that the statutes under construction are ambiguous, at least to the extent of sustaining the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT