Louisville Gas and Electric Company v. Shanks

• Decision Date: 26 March 1926
• Citation: 213 Ky. 762
• Parties: Louisville Gas and Electric Company v. Shanks, Auditor of the State of Kentucky.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 762

213 Ky. 762

Louisville Gas and Electric Company v. Shanks, Auditor of the State of Kentucky.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided March 26, 1926.

Constitutional Law — Taxation — Statute Taxing Privilege of Recording Mortgages, Except to Building and Loan Associations, Held Not Unconstitutional (Ky. Stats., Section 4019a-9; Constitution, U.S. Amend. 14; Bill of Rights, Ky. Stats., Section 3; Constitution, Ky., Sections 170, 171). — Ky. Stats., section 4019a-9, taxing privilege of recording mortgages when indebtedness does not mature within 5 years, and exempting mortgages to building and loan associations, held not violative of Constitution, U.S. Amend. 14, Bill of Rights, Ky., section 3, or Constitution, Ky., sections 170, 171.

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.

MATT O'DOHERTY, CUMMINS, ROEMER & FLYNN and ALEX P. HUMPHREY for appellant.

FRANK E. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, and CHARLES F. CREAL, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY COMMISSIONER SANDIDGE

Affirming.

By this appeal appellant attacks section 4019a-9, Kentucky Statutes, as being in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and of section 3 of the Bill of Rights, and sections 170 and 171 of the Constitution of Kentucky. The statute in question provides that for the privilege of recording mortgages when the indebtedness so secured does not mature within five years, a tax of 20 cents upon each $100.00 or fractional part thereof of such indebtedness shall be paid, exempting from its operation mortgages to building and loan associations. The case of Middendorf, Clerk, etc. v. Goodale, et al., Trustee, 202 Ky. 118, presented to this court the exact questions here raised. There the statute in question was attacked from the same positions taken by appellant here. The Middendorf case was orally argued to and was considered by the whole court. The opinion deals exhaustively with all the questions raised by appellant as affecting the validity and constitutionality of the statute in question. The conclusion of this court that the statute in question does not contravene any of the provisions of either the federal or state Constitutions was reached after giving full weight to all of the arguments now made by appellant, and after deliberate consideration of the questions involved. That opinion expresses this court's views upon all of them fully and clearly. Repetition is not deemed to be necessary.

The trial court...