State v. Bell

Decision Date23 December 1893
PartiesSTATE ex rel. HUNT v. BELL, Excise Commissioner.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

BLACK, C. J.

Proceeding by mandamus, instituted in this court. The respondent, Bell, is excise commissioner in the city of St. Louis, appointed under the act entitled "An act to create the office of excise commissioner in cities having a population of 200,000 or more, and to provide for the appointment and to define the duties of such commissioner." Acts 1893, p. 149. Hunt, the relator, presented to respondent, Bell, a petition for license to carry on a dramshop at a designated place in the city of St. Louis. His petition complied with the laws of the state and the ordinances of St. Louis. Bell, as excise commissioner, gave him a statement, showing the amount to be paid to the collector, which amount Hunt paid, and then presented a duplicate receipt, and demanded the proper license for six months from July 4, 1893. Bell, as excise commissioner, demanded a fee of three dollars for issuing a state license, and the further sum of three dollars for issuing a city license, while Hunt tendered three dollars, and refused to pay any further amount. The object of this proceeding is to compel the commissioner to issue the proper license for the one fee. If it was the duty of the commissioner to issue two licenses, — one in behalf of the state, and one in behalf of the city of St. Louis, — then a peremptory writ should be denied, for the commissioner was entitled to a fee of three dollars for each license, according to the eighth section of that act. To an understanding of this question it is necessary to take a general survey of the general laws, and also of the ordinances of the city of St. Louis, relating to dramshops as they existed just before the passage of the law of 1893. The general dramshop law of 1891 (Acts 1891, p. 128) defines dramshop keepers, and gives to the county court the power to issue a dramshop license on the application of the dramshop keeper, and provides that there shall be levied upon any such license a tax for state purposes, and also a tax for county purposes. Most of the sections of that act relate to such licenses issued by county courts, and not to licenses issued by cities. The eighth section, however, applies to cities also, and according to it a dramshop license cannot be issued, either by a county court or a city, except upon a petition of a specified number of taxpayers in the specified locality. The city of St. Louis has the charter power to license, tax, and regulate dramshops; and the petition of the relator shows that the city had enacted ordinances for that purpose. These ordinances, and section 8 of the act of 1891, point out how the city licenses may be obtained. Enough has been said to show that prior to the act of March 17, 1893, a dramshop keeper in St. Louis was bound to have two licenses, — one from the state, and one from the city. The revenue arising from one goes to the state treasury, and the revenue from the other to the city treasury. As the city of St. Louis occupies the dual relation to the state of a county and a city under its scheme and charter, it must collect the state tax. Indeed, it is conceded by the relator's petition that he was bound to procure two licenses prior to the act of March 17, 1893. We then come to the inquiry whether the excise commissioner appointed by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Owen v. Baer
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 20, 1900
    ...prescribed population, but to all such as might thereafter attain to it. State v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439, 13 S. W. 832, 1051; State v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70, 24 S. W. 765. But statutes which were restricted in their application to one or more counties or cities, with no provision by which those sub......
  • State v. Roach
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 2, 1914
    ...County Court, 128 Mo. 442, 30 S. W. 103, 31 S. W. 23; State ex inf. v. Continental Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1, 75 S. W. 737; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70, 24 S. W. 765. But in order that an act, which is local and special and which applies only to 1 political subdivision of the state out o......
  • State ex rel. v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...51, 155 S.W. 394; State ex inf. v. Business Men's Club, 178 Mo. App. 551, 163 S.W. 901; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 76; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 75, 24 S.W. 765; State ex rel. v. Matthews, 94 Mo. 117, 7 S.W. A reading of these cases will be at least enlightening to one who conceives ......
  • Davis v. Jasper County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 2, 1927
    ...Co., 177 Mo. 1 [75 S. W. 737]; State ex rel. v. County Court, 128 Mo. loc. cit. 442 [30 S. W. 106, 31 S. W. 231; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70 [24 S. W. 765]. Nor has the rule as to such a standard been altered by the fact that such an act has been found applicable only to one city. Sta......
  • 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