Flanigan v. County of Sierra
| Decision Date | 20 February 1905 |
| Docket Number | No. 121,121 |
| Citation | 196 U.S. 553,49 L.Ed. 597,25 S.Ct. 314 |
| Parties | P. J. FLANIGAN, Petitioner . v. COUNTY OF SIERRA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs.
C. C. Cole, Joseph C. Campbell, and Thomas H. Breeze for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 553-555 intentionally omitted] Messrs.Frank R. Wehe, C. N. Post, and W. J. Redding for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 555-557 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:
This action was brought by respondent against petitioner in the superior court of the county of Sierra, state of California, and removed on his motion to the United States circuit court.
The action was brought to recover the amount of license ordained under an ordinance passed May 31, 1900, by the supervisors of the respondent county, under what is known as 'the county government act.' Cal. Stat. 1897, chap. 277. The act gave power to the boards of supervisors of counties as follows:
'To license for regulation and revenue, all and every kind of business not prohibited by law, and transacted and carried on in such county, and all shows, exhibitions, and lawful games carried on therein, to fix the rates of license tax upon the same, and to provide for the collection of the same, by suit or otherwise.' § 25, subd. 25.
In pursuance of the power conferred the ordinance in controversy was enacted, § 1 of which is as follows:
'Each and every person, copartnership, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of raising, grazing, herding, or pasturing sheep in the county of Sierra, state of California, must annually procure a license therefor from the license collector, and must pay therefor the sum of ten (10) cents for each sheep or lamb owned by, in the possession of, or under the control of such person, copartnership, firm, or corporation, and used in such business in said county.'
Application for a license is required to be made by affidavit, stating the number of sheep owned by and in possession of the applicant. 'The license tax,' it is provided, 'shall be deemed a debt due to the county,' which the district attorney of the county is directed to sue for; and a judgment is authorized. In case of recovery by the county, $50 damages and costs must be added to the judgment. All money collected for license, less a fee of 10 per cent for collection, 'shall be paid over to the county treasurer, as other moneys are, and be placed to the credit of the general funds of the county.' Years, within the meaning of the ordinance, shall commence on the 1st day of January and end on the 31st day of December.
The petitioner, between the 1st of May and the 25th of June, 1900, engaged in the business described in the ordinance, and had in his possession and under his control 25,000 sheep. He failed to apply for a license, and became, it is alleged, indebted to the county for the sum of $2,500, and became further indebted to the sum of $50 by way of damages for his neglect. Payment of both sums was demanded.
Petitioner demurred to the complaint, which, being overruled, and he having declined to answer, judgment was taken against him. It was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 58 C. C. A. 340, 122 Fed. 24.
The ordinance was passed on the 31st day of May, 1900, and suit was brought on the 25th day of June of that year. On March 23, 1901, by an amendment to the Political Code of the state of California (Cal. Stat. 1900, 1901, p. 635, § 3366), the authority of the board of supervisors to license for revenue was repealed. The repealing provision is as follows:
'Boards of supervisors of the counties of the state, and the legislative bodies of the incorporated cities and towns therein, shall, in the exercise of their police powers, and for the purpose of regulation, as herein provided, and not otherwise, have power to license all and every kind of business not prohibited by law, and transacted and carried on within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, and all shows, exhibitions, and lawful games carried on therein, to fix the rates of license tax upon the same, and to provide for the collection of the same by suit of otherwise.'
It is contended that the ordinance imposing the license was a revenue measure, not a police regulation, and that the law under which it was enacted, having been repealed, the suit abated. And it is also contended that there was no power to pass the ordinance. The latter contention is certainly untenable. Ex parte Mirande, 73 Cal. 365, 14 Pac. 888. The former requires some discussion. There are two parts to it,—the character of the ordinance, as being for revenue or regulation, and the effect of the repeal of the ordinance. Under the authority of the California cases, it must be regarded as a revenue measure. 72 Cal. 387, 14 Pac. 100; 73 Cal. 365, 14 Pac. 888; 119 Cal. 119, 51 Pac. 32; Santa Monica v. Guidinger, 137 Cal. 658, 70 Pac. 732; Sonora v. Curtin, 137 Cal. 583, 70 Pac. 674.
In Merced County v. Helm, 102 Cal. 159, 36 Pac. 399, the court said, distinguishing between the taxing power and the police power, that the latter 'is exercised in the enforcement of a penalty prescribed for the noncompliance with the law, or for the doing of some prohibited act.' It was provided by the ordinance passed on that the license should be a 'debt,' payable in advance, and to be collected, in case of nonpayment, by suit. The absence of regulatory provisions has also been held to be an element in determining the character of an ordinance. Santa Monica v. Guidinger, 137 Cal. 658, 70 Pac. 732. The ordinance in controversy in the case at bar was, at least, assumed by the circuit court of appeals to be a revenue measure. This being its character, what was the effect of its repeal? It withdraws the power of collecting the tax, petitioner contends. The court of appeals did not take this view. The court regarded the right of the county as vesting at the date of the imposition of the license, and that the liability of petitioner was so far contractual as to be unaffected by the repeal of the statute giving power to the county to enact the ordinance. We are unable to assent to this view. It is disputable under the authorities, and it is opposed to the decisions of the supreme court of the state of California.
The general rule is that powers derived wholly from a statute are extinguished by its repeal. Sutherland, Stat. Const. § 165. And it follows that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. General Motors Corporation
...Act of 1938. "The general rule is that powers derived wholly from a statute are extinguished by its repeal." Flanigan v. Sierra County, 196 U.S. 553, 25 S.Ct. 314, 315, 49 L.Ed. 597. The claims in suit rely for their validity on a statute. Congress has plenary power to terminate purely stat......
-
Battaglia v. General Motors Corporation
...Clearly, the general rule is that "powers derived wholly from a statute are extinguished by its repeal." Flanigan v. County of Sierra, 196 U.S. 553, 560, 25 S.Ct. 314, 315, 49 L.Ed. 597. The Supreme Court, moreover, has told us that rights granted to employees under the Fair Labor Standards......
-
Kemp v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc.
... ... constitutional power by making contracts about them. See ... Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 28 S.Ct ... 529, 52 L.Ed. 828 [832], 14 Ann.Cas. 560.' A ... Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413, 88 ... A.L.R. 1481; Flanigan v. Sierra County, 196 U.S. 553, 25 ... S.Ct. 314, 49 L.Ed. 597; McNair v. Knott, 302 U.S. 369, 58 ... ...
-
People v. D.K.B.
...Vail v. Denver Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 108 Colo. 206, 210, 115 P.2d 389, 391 (1941) (quoting Flanigan v. Sierra Cty., 196 U.S. 553, 560, 25 S.Ct. 314, 315, 49 L.Ed. 597 (1905)). There is no such authorizing clause in the 1988 statute. Therefore, the ability of the respondents to peti......