Lucas v. City of Charlotte, 4083.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 4083.,4083. |
| Citation | 109 ALR 297,86 F.2d 394 |
| Parties | LUCAS et al. v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
J. L. De Laney, of Charlotte, N. C. (Bridges & Orr, of Charlotte, N. C., on the brief), for appellants.
Robert A. Wellons, of Charlotte, N. C., and Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
The appellants, herein referred to as the plaintiffs, brought this suit in equity in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina, in March, 1936, seeking to enjoin the collection of taxes attempted to be collected from the plaintiff's, their agents or employees, by the City of Charlotte, N. C., and the State of North Carolina. An order to show cause was entered by the judge below, and one of the appellees, Leonard C. Cooke, filed a special appearance and entered a plea to the jurisdiction of the court; said appellee also filed an answer and the cause was submitted to the judge below upon an agreed statement of facts. After a hearing, the court entered a decree dismissing the suit. From which action this appeal was brought.
The plaintiffs, doing business under the firm name of Fox Studio, are citizens of the State of Minnesota and are engaged in the business of photography with their place of business located in the City of St. Paul. The appellee City of Charlotte is a municipal corporation and the appellee Pittman is chief of police thereof. Appellee Reid is Deputy Commissioner of Revenue of the State of North Carolina, and appellee Cooke is a member of the Board of Photographic Examiners of the State of North Carolina. Appellee Stinson is tax collector of Mecklenberg county, N. C.
The plaintiffs sent representatives or solicitors into the State of North Carolina to obtain orders for portraits and began to solicit business in the City of Charlotte. In the conduct of the business the solicitor sells a coupon to the prospect for a stated sum and collects a part of the sale price, in accordance with the terms of the coupon, and delivers the coupon to the customer. The customer presents this coupon, at the time and place stated thereon, in the City of Charlotte, pays the balance agreed upon, and has his picture taken. The negative of the picture is then sent by United States mail to the home studio in St. Paul, where it is developed and proofs made therefrom. When the proofs are made from the negatives taken in Charlotte, they are then sent back, by mail, to the representatives in the City of Charlotte, where the customer makes his selection and the proof is mailed back to St. Paul, at which place the picture is finished and shipped by mail back to the customer.
Section 109, chapter 371, Public Laws of the State of North Carolina, 1935, requires the payment of a license tax for photographers, canvassers for any photographer, agent for a photographer in transmitting pictures or photographs to be copied, enlarged, or colored. Chapter 155, Public Laws of the State of North Carolina, 1935, also requires all persons engaged in photography to comply with certain provisions with regard to the license of applicants who desire to practice photography in the state and requires the payment of an annual license fee of $5.
The City of Charlotte, N. C., has an ordinance regulating transient photographers in the city and prescribing a license and bond therefor. This ordinance provides for the payment of a $25 annual license for every transient photographer and each and every agent of any photographer engaged in the selling of coupons or similar device on behalf of the photographer.
The bill prays for relief against all the taxes provided for in the two state laws and the city ordinance and asks that the collection of the various taxes be enjoined. The bill does not allege that the jurisdictional amount is involved but bases its prayer for relief upon the contention that the state laws, above referred to, are unconstitutional,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mobley, 73
... ... 592, 30 L.Ed. 694, and running through the decision in Nippert v. City of Richmond, 327 U.S. 416, 66 S.Ct. 586, 90 L.Ed. 760 ... substantial relation to interstate commerce, cites and relies upon Lucas v. City of Charlotte, 4 Cir., 86 F.2d 394, 396, 109 A.L.R. 297. That ... ...
-
Reiling v. Lacy
...59 S.Ct. 744, 83 L.Ed. 1001; Henneford v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 303 U.S. 17, 58 S.Ct. 415, 82 L.Ed. 619; Lucas v. City of Charlotte, 4 Cir., 86 F.2d 394, 109 A.L.R. 297. The case of Berryman v. Whitman College, 222 U.S. 334, 32 S.Ct. 147, 56 L.Ed. 225, upon which plaintiff relies, is cl......
-
Seismograph Service Corporation v. Bureau of Revenue, 5895
...885, 85 L.Ed. 1188; Coverdale v. Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., 303 U.S. 604, 58 S.Ct. 736, 82 L.Ed. 1043; Lucas v. City of Charlotte, 4 Cir., 86 F.2d 394, 109 A.L.R. 297; Albuquerque Broadcasting Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 51 N.M. 332, 184 P.2d 416, 11 A.L.R.2d 966; American Manufacturin......
-
Olan Mills, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau
...the taking, are sent to another state to be finished does not make the transaction one of interstate commerce. Lucas v. Charlotte, 4 Cir., 86 F.2d 394, 109 A.L.R. 297, 299. State v. Gray, 192 Ark. 1045, 96 S.W.2d 447, and Graves v. State, 258 Ala. 359, 62 So.2d 446, 450, support the city's ......