Duff v. The City of Garden City
Decision Date | 08 January 1926 |
Docket Number | 27,036 |
Citation | 251 P. 1091,122 Kan. 390 |
Parties | V. A. DUFF et al., Appellants, v. THE CITY OF GARDEN CITY et al., Appellees |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1927.
Appeal from Finney district court; CHARLES E. VANCE, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS--Charge for Selling Gasoline and Oil--Construction--Void as License Fee. A charge imposed by a city on the business of selling gasoline and oil is interpreted to be in substantial part a license fee rather than an occupation tax and is held to be in conflict with chapter 274 of the Laws of 1925, which provides for a state tax on the business and exempts dealers from the payment of license fees and all other charges except occupation taxes.
Earle W. Evans, George C. Spradling, both of Wichita, Edgar Foster and Horace J. Foster, both of Garden City, for the appellants.
Robert S. Field and R. W. Hoskinson, both of Garden City, for the appellees.
This was an action by a number of individuals, firms and corporations engaged in the sale of gasoline and oil against Garden City to enjoin the enforcement of a city ordinance fixing what is termed an occupation license fee upon the business of selling gasoline. A temporary injunction was granted at the commencement of the action, but after plaintiffs had introduced their evidence at the trial, the court sustained a demurrer thereto dissolving the temporary injunction previously granted and gave judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.
They contend that the ordinance under which fees are charged and collected is in conflict with the statute imposing a tax on the sale or use of motor-vehicle fuels, including gasoline, and providing "that the tax herein provided for shall be in lieu of all other taxes or license fees (except occupational taxes) upon the sale or use of said motor-vehicle fuels." (Laws 1925, ch. 274, § 6.) It was also insisted that the fee charged is unreasonable, oppressive and confiscatory and that the revenue requirements of the city do not warrant the imposition of such a charge. The material parts of the ordinance challenged for invalidity follow:
At each place of business or filling station where two gasoline pumps are used in dispensing gasoline in said business, the sum of $ 720.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Home Builders Ass'n of Greater Kansas City v. City of Overland Park
...should be treated alike. Unified School Dist. No. 229 v. State, 256 Kan. 232, 260, 885 P.2d 1170 (1994). HBA cites Duff v. Garden City, 122 Kan. 390, 251 Pac. 1091 (1927). In Duff, the court invalidated a city ordinance which levied a charge upon the business of selling oil and gas. The cou......
-
Callaway v. City of Overland Park
...of a city's power to license or tax was based upon its police power and was limited to purposes of regulation. (See Duff v. Garden City, 122 Kan. 390, 251 P. 1091.) In other instances the power of a city to impose a tax was based upon specific legislative grant. (See Chapter 96, Laws of 195......
-
State ex rel. Moore v. City of Wichita, 41220
...prohibited or which are not specifically or exclusively reserved as objects of regulation or taxation by the state (Duff v. Garden City, 122 Kan. 390, 393, 251 P. 1091; City of Independence v. Hindenach, 144 Kan. 414, 417, 61 P.2d 124, 107 A.L.R. 645; McKay v. City of Wichita, 135 Kan. 678,......
-
Dorssom v. City of Atchison
... ... license taxes or occupation taxes upon producers and growers, ... or their agents or employees engaged in the sale of farm, or ... garden products, or fruits grown within this state." ... It is ... contended that under it the city is forbidden to impose any ... license or ... The ordinance did not fix any fee as a means of producing ... revenue under any power of taxation. See Duff v. Garden ... City, 122 Kan. 390, 251 P. 1091, and McKay v. City ... of Wichita, 135 Kan. 678, 11 P.2d 733. The question ... remains whether the ... ...