Purnell v. City of Florence, 8 Div. 495
| Decision Date | 08 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 495 |
| Citation | 175 So. 417,27 Ala.App. 516 |
| Parties | PURNELL v. CITY OF FLORENCE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.
J.H Purnell was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Florence, and he appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
Jones & Poellnitz, of Florence, for appellant.
Orlan B. Hill, of Florence, for appellee.
Omitting a consideration of the informalities in this record, we proceed to a determination of this appeal upon the agreed statement of the facts, which by common consent of the parties present the real questions at issue.
The City of Florence had an ordinance, duly enacted and approved and which was in full force and effect during the year 1934 and covered the time in which it was charged that this defendant conducted a business in violation of said ordinance.
The ordinance provided a license of $300 per annum on "Each bakery agent whether delivering to consumer or in bulk, local or out of town."
The defendant was a wholesale dealer in bread. He bought his requirements outright, and resold them to retail dealers in Florence. Under the evidence there is no element of agency involved. Under the evidence, it was as if the defendant had bought flour or other commodities for retail or other disposition.
Under the rules, as laid down by all of the authorities, 2 Corpus Juris Secundum Agency, p. 1026, par. a; Thompson v. Atchley, 201 Ala. 398, 78 So. 196, 79 So. 478. Before there can be an agent, there must be a principal, and, when a person acts independently, he cannot be classed as an agent for any purpose.
More especially is this true in construing a revenue statute where, under the law, such statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the taxpayer, and against the taxing power. State v. Seals Piano Co., 209 Ala. 93, 95 So. 451; Yarbrough Bros. Hardware Co. v. Phillips, 209 Ala. 341, 96 So. 414; Hill Grocery Co. v. State, 26 Ala.App. 302, 159 So. 269.
In this case, according to the agreed statement of facts, the probata and the allegata do not correspond; and hence, the defendant should have been discharged. As the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re O'Dell
...Co. v. Williams, 287 Ala. 385, 252 So.2d 45 (1971); Caldwell v. Caffey, 269 Ala. 543, 114 So.2d 560 (1959); Purnell v. City of Florence, 27 Ala.App. 516, 175 So. 417 (1937) (The distinguishing features of "agency" are its representative character and its derivative authority. When an `agent......
-
Cox v. Howard Hall Co.
...the court, said: 'Agency is determined by the facts, and not by how the parties may characterize the relationship. Purnell v. City of Florence, 27 Ala.App. 516, 175 So. 417. If the facts establish the relationship of principal and agent, the intention of the parties is immaterial, and the c......
-
Ex parte Hicks
..."Agency is determined by the facts and not by how the parties may characterize their relationship." Purnell v. City of Florence, 27 Ala.App. 516, 175 So. 417 (1937). The uncontroverted testimony indicated that the load of wire was hauled to Atlanta, Georgia, at Cardinal's request and on its......
-
King v. Earley, 6 Div. 785
...transaction.' Agency is determined by the facts, and not by how the parties may characterize the relationship. Purnell v. City of Florence, 27 Ala.App. 516, 175 So. 417. If the facts establish the relationship of principal and agent, the intention of the parties is immaterial, and the chara......