Gamble v. City Council of Montgomery

• Decision Date: 30 June 1905
• Citation: 39 So. 353,147 Ala. 682
• Parties: GAMBLE v. CITY COUNCIL OF MONTGOMERY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

39 So. 353

147 Ala. 682

GAMBLE v. CITY COUNCIL OF MONTGOMERY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1905

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery.

"To be officially reported."

J. C Gamble was convicted of a violation of an ordinance of the city of Montgomery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Hill Hill & Whiting, for appellant.

Ray Rushton, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

The sole question involved in this appeal is the validity of the ordinance under which this defendant was convicted in the court below. Acts 1894-95, p. 635, § 10, provides "that said city council shall have the power to license all business, trades, occupations and professions not prohibited by the Constitution and laws of the state of Alabama." It is settled law in this state that the Legislature can confer upon cities and towns the power to impose a license tax upon business and professions. N., C. & St. L. Ry. v Attalla, 118 Ala. 362, 24 So. 450; Elsberry v State, 52 Ala. 8; Ex parte City Council of Montgomery, 64 Ala. 463; City Council v. Shoemaker, 51 Ala. 114; Abel v. State, 90 Ala. 631, 8 So. 760; City Council of Montgomery v. Kelly (Ala.) 38 So. 67. If the tax is not unreasonable, oppressive, or prohibitive, it will be upheld by the courts and is not violative of the Constitution, unless in its operation it discriminates against one and in favor of another member of the same class. "We may concede that, when a tax is imposed on avocations or privileges on the franchises of corporations, it must be equal and uniform. The equality and uniformity consists in the imposition of a like tax upon all who engage in the avocation, or who may exercise the privilege." Ph nix Carpet Co. v. State, 118 Ala. 151, 22 So. 627, 72 Am. St. Rep. 143. "So long as the burden falls with equal weight upon every member of a given class, natural and artificial alike, it is difficult to formulate an argument that such levy violates any provision of our own or of the federal Constitution." Quartlebaum v. State, 79 Ala. 4.

In the case at bar we have no evidence that the tax imposed is unreasonable or prohibitive. So far as we know, the defendant could well afford to pay the tax and conduct a lucrative and profitable business. The bill of exceptions sets out the amount of stock carried, and total amount for sale of stamps but does not mention how many of said stamps have been redeemed. It may be that two-thirds of them have not and never will be presented. Besides, they are only redeemed after a purchaser of goods has preserved all of his checks to the amount of $500. If purchasers do not preserve checks to the amount of $500, the checks avail them nothing, and go towards making up the profits of the defendant. The rule applies here that when the question as to the reasonableness of a city ordinance is raised, and it has reference to a subject-matter within the corporate jurisdiction of the city, it will be presumed to be reasonable, unless the contrary appears upon the face of the law itself or is...