F. W. Woolworth Co v. Harrison, 7818.
Decision Date | 12 February 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 7818.,7818. |
Parties | F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. et al. v. HARRISON, Comptroller General, et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Edgar E. Pomeroy, Judge.
Petition by the F. W. Woolworth Company and others against W. B. Harrison, Comptroller General, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
Reversed.
Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, Sullivan & Cromwell, Edw. H. Green, Gwinn & Pell, and Harmon E. Cutler, all of New York City, Alston, Alston, Foster & Moise, Bryan & Middlebrooks, W. Colquitt Carter, Dorsey & Shelton, Branch & Howard, J. Lon Duckworth, Jones, Evins, Powers & Jones, H. C. Holbrook, McElreath & Scott, Herman Heyman, Harold Hirsch, Marion Smith, W. O. Wilson, Howell, Heyman & Bolding, Watklns, Asbill & Watkins, and D. F. Black, all of Atlanta, and Lederer, Livingston, Kahn & Adler, of Chicago, 111., for plaintiffs in error.
Geo. M. Napier, Atty. Gen., T. R. Gress, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robt. B. Troutman, Robt. S. Sams, and Frank Carter, all of Atlanta, and J. P. Wilhoit, of Warrenton, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
The tax act of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 71, par. 109) provides: "Under the police powers of this State, the business of conducting chain stores and/or a chain of stores, for theselling of any kind of merchandise, hereby is classified as a business tending to foster monopoly; and there is hereby levied upon each and every such person, firm, or corporation, owning, operating, maintaining, or controlling a chain of stores, consisting of more than five stores, the sum of $50.00 for each store." Petitioners, alleging that the defendants are undertaking, under authority of said act to collect the tax of $50 on each and every store operated by petitioners, contend that the said act is unconstitutional and void, because in conflict with designated sections of the state and federal Constitutions. The petition was attacked by demurrer, and the exception is to the sustaining of the demurrer. Held:
1. Under the uniform practice, the demurrer admits all allegations properly pleaded. The petition alleges that the state is seeking to collect the tax on each and every store, which, considered in connection with the language of the act, is construed to mean the levy of the tax on all of the stores of petitioners, and not merely those in excess of five.
2. Under the above construction, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Kentucky Tax Com'n
... ... Court of Georgia in F. W. Woolworth Company v ... Harrison, 172 Ga. 179, 156 S.E. 904, and Harrison v ... National Biscuit ... ...
-
Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Kentucky Tax Com'n.
...store in a chain consisting of more than five stores, was declared invalid by the Supreme Court of Georgia in F.W. Woolworth Company v. Harrison, 172 Ga. 179, 156 S.E. 904, and Harrison v. National Biscuit Company, 172 Ga. 285, 157 S.E. 666. In City of Douglas v. South Georgia Grocery Compa......
- Atlanta Laundries Inc v. Harrison, 8516.
-
Atlanta Laundries, Inc. v. Harrison
... ... 687, 75 S.E. 982. Nor does the provision in the tax act ... now under consideration fall within the reasons given in the ... case of Woolworth v. Harrison, 172 Ga. 179, 156 S.E ... 904, for holding that the tax imposed upon chain stores was ... unconstitutional ... 5 ... ...