Mefford v. City Council of Sheffield

Decision Date30 June 1906
Citation148 Ala. 539,41 So. 970
PartiesMEFFORD v. CITY COUNCIL OF SHEFFIELD.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; E. B. Almon, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

W. M Mefford was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Sheffield, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Charles P. Jones and W. F. Thetford, Jr., for appellant.

J. L Andrews, for appellee.

DENSON J.

Prosecution was commenced against the defendant (appellant) before the recorder of the city of Sheffield for engaging in the business of wholesale dealer in kerosene oil in the city of Sheffield, without first obtaining a license to carry on such business. From a judgment of conviction rendered by the recorder, the defendant appealed to the circuit court of Colbert county. In that court the case was tried on an agreed statement of facts, and from a judgment of conviction rendered by that court, the defendant has appealed to this court.

The city of Sheffield was incorporated by an act of the General Assembly approved February 17, 1885 (Act 1885, p. 781). Subsection 27 of section 27 (page 798) of the charter as established by that act was amended by an act of the General Assembly approved February 28, 1889 (Acts 1888-89, p. 907, § 5). And so much of the section as amended, which bears upon the question presented by this case, is in the following language: "That subsection 27 of section 27 of said act be amended so as to read as follows: said city council shall have authority to levy and collect from all persons, firms and corporations trading or carrying on any business, trade, or profession; by agent or otherwise in said corporate limits, a license tax on said business, trade, or profession; provided, that no license tax shall exceed the sum of two hundred dollars, except license on retail, vinous, spirituous, and malt liquors, which shall not exceed one thousand dollars."

In the statement of facts on which this case was tried, is set out a license ordinance of the city which so far as it pertains to the question in hand is as follows:

"Annual License Ordinance. An ordinance entitled an ordinance to prescribe and fix license for business, occupations and vocations in the city of Sheffield, Alabama, for the year 1904.
"Section 1. Be it enacted by the city council of Sheffield, Alabama: That the following be and the same is hereby declared to be the schedule of licenses for the year 1904, for the divers businesses, professions, occupations and avocations carried on or engaged in, in the city of Sheffield, Alabama, and each and every person, firm, company or corporation engaging in any of the business, vocations, professions or occupations provided for by agents or otherwise, shall pay for and take out such license and in such sums as are herein provided, to wit: For wholesale dealers in kerosene oil, or other illuminating oil, to wit: Oil, each wholesale dealer in kerosene oil or other illuminating oil, $200.00. 110. All dealers in goods, wares, or merchandise, when license is not fixed by this ordinance, whether their principal business be the sale of the particular article dealt in or not, whether a person, firm, or corporation manufacturing or otherwise, selling to parties within the city each, $10.00.
"Sec. 4. Be it further ordained when parties are engaged in two or more businesses, under the same roof and in one room they shall take out the license for the business, profession, vocation, or occupation requiring the greater license, and not be required to pay for more than one business except as above provided."

It is conceded that the defendant did not have the license required. It is further shown by the agreed statement of facts that kerosene oil is a useful commodity, in general use, and is kept and sold by wholesale and retail grocery merchants and druggists as a part of their regular stock in trade; that there were during the entire year of 1904, both wholesale and retail grocery merchants and druggists carrying on their business in Sheffield, Ala.

The contention of the appellant is that the ordinance imposing a tax of $200 on wholesale dealers in oil violates the constitutional provision that all occupations or business enterprises or property of the same class must be taxed equally. As was said in Ph nix Carpet Co. v. State, 118 Ala. 143, 22 So. 627, 72 Am. St. Rep. 143: "We may concede that when a tax is imposed on avocations or privileges, or on the franchises of corporations, it must be equal and uniform. The equality and uniformity consist in the imposition of a tax upon all who engage in the avocation, or who may exercise the privilege, taxed, and, if it be a franchise tax, upon all corporations belonging to the class upon whom it is imposed." 1 Desty on Tax. § 36; Cooley on Tax. (2d Ed.) 378; Delaware Ry. Tax Case, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 206, 21 L.Ed. 888; City of New Orleans v. Kaufman, 29 La. Ann. 283, 29 Am. Rep. 328; Durach's Appeal, 62 Pa 491. The Legislature in the legitimate exercise of the taxing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 Julio 1914
    ...State v. Birmingham Southern R.R. Co., 62 So. 77; Capital City Water Co. v. Board of Revenue, 117 Ala. 303, 23 So. 970; Mefford v. Sheffield, 148 Ala. 543, 41 So. 970; Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Lott, 54 Ala. People v. Ronner, 185 N.Y. 285, 77 N.E. 1061; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.,......
  • Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 5 Junio 1920
    ......456, 84 S.E. 105, L.R.A.1915C, 981,. subd. 1, opinion; City of St. Louis v. Hill, 116 Mo. 527, 22 S.W. 861, 21 L.R.A. 226, 228; ... 251 Pa. 134, 96 A. 246, L.R.A.1916F, 154, and note; City. Council of Montgomery v. Kelly, 142 Ala. 552, 38 So. 67,. 70 L.R.A. 209, 110 ...297; Tuscaloosa v. Holczstein, 134 Ala. 636, 32 So. 1007; Mefford v. Sheffield, 148 Ala. 539, 41 So. 970; Southern. Express Co. v. Rose, ......
  • Woco Pep Co. of Montgomery v. City of Montgomery
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 14 Mayo 1925
    ......757;. Gardner v. City of Montgomery (Ala.Sup.) 105 So. 222; Allgood v. Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co., 196. Ala. 500, 71 So. 724. . . It is. unnecessary that we further set ... case, and not oppressive and prohibitive. Gamble v. City. Council of Montgomery, 147 Ala. 682, 39 So. 353;. Republic I. & S. Co. v. State, 204 Ala. 469, 86 So. ...43; Gamble v. City Council of. Montgomery, 147 Ala. 682, 39 So. 353; Mefford v. City of Sheffield, 148 Ala. 539, 41 So. 970; City of. Troy v. W.U.T. Co., 164 Ala. 482, 51 ......
  • Rochell v. City of Florence
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 30 Marzo 1939
    ...... agents, and employees of the City of Florence allow bottlers. in Tuscumbia and Sheffield to distribute soft drinks. manufactured in those towns in the City of Florence on. payment of a ...293; City of. Cullman v. Arndt, 125 Ala. 581, 28 So. 70; City. Council of Montgomery v. Kelly, 142 Ala. 552, 38 So. 67,. 70 L.R.A. 209, 110 Am.St.Rep. 43; Alabama idated. Coal & Iron Co. v. Herzberg, 177 Ala. 248, 59 So. 305;. Mefford v. City of Sheffield, 148 Ala. 539, 41 So. 970. . . Pertinent. to a decision of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT