Schaul v. City Of Charlotte
| Decision Date | 21 April 1896 |
| Citation | 118 N.C. 733,24 S.E. 526 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SCHAUL et al. v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE. |
Statutes—Repeal—Taxation—Licenses—Fawn-brokers.
1. Private Acts 1881. c. 40, § 37, providing, in regard to the city of Charlotte, that taxes for city purposes shall be levied on real and personal property, trades, licenses, and other subjects, as provided by Const, art. 5, § 3; and section 57, repealing all inconsistent acts, —repeal Private Laws 1860, c. 7, § 19, subd. 13, fixing a limit as to the amount of the licenses to be demanded of brokers.
2. Private Laws 1866, c. 7, § 19. subd. 13, restricting the amount to be paid for licenses by "brokers, " does not affect "pawnbrokers."
Appeal from superior court, Mecklenburg county; Bryan, Judge.
Action by L. J. Schaul & Co. against the city of Charlotte. From a judgment for defendant plaintiffs appeal. No error.
Clarkson & Duls, for appellants.
Burwell, Walker & Cansler, for appellee.
The city of Charlotte, having laid a license tax of $250 on the business of pawnbroking, in which the plaintiffs were engaged, they followed the proper course to test the validity of such tax by paying it and bringing this action to recover it back. The plaintiffs contend that the tax is invalid because the charter of the city, ratified March 10, 1866 (Private Laws 1866, c. 7, § 19, subd. 13), authorizes "on every broker or exchange office a tax not exceeding one hundred dollars." This point, however, will not avail the plaintiffs, for two reasons: First. The charter granted the city of Charlotte (Private Acts 1881, c. 40, § 37) ex-pressly provides: "Taxes for city purposes shall be levied on real and personal property, trades, licenses, and other subjects of taxation as provided in section 3, article 5 of the state constitution." Section 57 of this act repeals all laws in conflict therewith. This act of 1881 confers upon the town broadly, without restriction, the right to decide what trade and license taxes it shall levy, and necessarily repeals, as to "brokers, " the limitation of $100 existing under the charter of 1866. There is no contention here that $250 is a license tax so unreasonable in amount as to call for the supervision and protection of the courts. Secondly. Even if the charter of 1881 had not repealed the above limitation upon the tax to be levied upon "brokers, " the plaintiffs could not have claimed protection under it. "Pawnbrokers" is an entirely separate and distinct business, and does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henrietta Mills v. Rutherford County
...etc. C. S. § 7979; Murdock v. Com'rs, 138 N. C. 124, 50 S. E. 567; Hilliard v. Asheville, 118 N. C. 845, 24 S. E. 738; Schaul v. Charlotte, 118 N. C. 733, 24 S. E. 526; Range Co. v. Carver, 118 N. C. 328, 24 S. E. '(2) He may, if the tax or assessment or some part thereof be illegal or inva......
-
Leonard v. Maxwell
...be separated from other merchants. Rosenbaum v. Newbern, supra. Brokers and pawnbrokers may be put in different classes. Schaul v. Charlotte, 118 N.C. 733, 24 S.E. 526. integrated chain store as compared with the voluntary type may be made the basis of differentiation. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 2......
-
Smith v. Wilkins
... ... license tax may be imposed on merchants and those dealing in ... second-hand clothing; Schaul v. Charlotte, 118 N.C ... 733, 24 S.E. 526, holding brokers and pawnbrokers different ... separately marked and wrapped. The importer sold each package ... separately. The city of New Orleans taxed the goods after ... they reached the hands of the importer (the duties having ... ...
-
Rd. Tr.S v. Geo. C. Brown & Co
...from those whose business it is to sell other articles falling within the same general terms." To same effect, Schaul v. Charlotte, 118 N. C. 733, 24 S. E. 526. In Lacy v. Packing Co., 134 N. C. 572, 47 S. E. 54, the subject is fully discussed, and it was held to be well settled that "a tax......