Vaughan v. City Of Richmond

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
Citation181 S.E. 372
Decision Date19 September 1935
PartiesVAUGHAN. v. CITY OF RICHMOND.

Appeal from Hustings Court of Richmond.

W. N. Vaughan was convicted of being engaged in the laundry business at a place of business located outside of the city of Richmond, and soliciting laundry business in the city of Richmond without having paid the required city of Richmond license therefor, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before CAMPBELL, C. J., and HOLT, HUDGINS, GREGORY, BROWNING, CHINN, and EGGLE-STON, JJ.

David Meade White and Andrew J. Ellis, both of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.

James E. Cannon, of Richmond, for defendant in error.

CHINN, Justice.

W. N. Vaughan was convicted in the Hustings court of the city of Richmond upon the charge of "being engaged in the laundry business at a place of business located outside of the city of Richmond, and soliciting laundry business in the city of Richmond without having paid the required city of Richmond license therefor, " in violation of an ordinance of said city. That provision of the ordinance under which the defendant was found guilty reads as follows:

"(c) Any person, firm, or corporation engaged in the laundry business. whose principal office or place of business is located outside of the city of Richmond, and who solicits laundry business in the city of Richmond, $150.00, and in addition thereto there shall be paid a license tax of $75.00 for each vehicle so used. The whole license tax assessed in this sub-section shall be paid in one sum at the time the license is issued and the same shall not be pro-rated or transferred."

The facts certified show that prior to and at the time of his conviction Vaughan was operator and owner of a steam laundry in the town of Ashland, Va.; that he had no plant or place of business in the city of Richmond, or in any other place except in the town of Ashland; that under an agreement with the drivers, Vaughan used and employed several trucks in soliciting laundry business for him in the city of Richmond, and in bringing it to Vaughan's plant in Ashland where it is laundered under the agreement with the drivers. The drivers then get it and return it to the customers, collect the regular price named in the Ashland laundry ticket, retain 30 per cent, thereof as their full compensation in soliciting and bringing the laundry business to Vaughan, and turn over 70 per cent. thereof to Vaughan under their agreement with him.

Vaughan paid the city license tax of $150 as required by the above ordinance, but refused to pay the additional license tax of $75 each thereby prescribed for the vehicles used in soliciting laundry business for him. He contends that the said ordinance is void because it prescribes and fixes an unreasonable and arbitrary classification between and discriminates against those who are engaged in the same business, and denies to the defendant the equal protection of the law, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of Virginia (section 11).

The sole question is, therefore, whether that provision of the ordinance which requires laundries located outside of the city of Richmond and soliciting business in the city to pay a license tax of $75 for each vehicle used in soliciting such business is valid as held by the Hustings court, or invalid as contended by petitioner.

We think the question is controlled by the case of Richmond Linen Supply Company v. City of Lynchburg, 160 Va. 644, 169 S. E. 554. In that case the Linen Supply Company operated a laundry in the city of Richmond. Its business consisted of renting towels and other linens to hotels, coats to barbers, dresses to waitresses, and like supplies to all customers it could secure. These supplies were delivered to its customers in Lynchburg from Richmond and, after being used until soiled, were then collected and carried back to Richmond where they were laundered by the company's laundry and then redelivered. The defendant in that case was charged with and convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Lynchburg which, after...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Geo. B. Wallace, Inc. v. Pfost, 6367
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 18, 1937
    ...... discrimination against interstate commerce in so doing. (. Vaughan v. City of Richmond, 165 Va. 145, 181 S.E. 372; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. (U.S.) 148, 19 L.Ed. ......
  • Marshall v. Northern Virginia Transp. Auth., Record No. 071959.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • February 29, 2008
    ...City of Fredericksburg v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 168 Va. 57, 64, 190 S.E. 318, 321 (1937); Vaughan v. City of Richmond, 165 Va. 145, 148, 181 S.E. 372, 374 (1935); City of Norfolk v. Chamberlain, 89 Va. (14 Hans.) 196, 226, 16 S.E. 730, 740 (1892). This power to tax, which is inherent in eve......
  • O'connell v. Kontojohn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 16, 1938
    ...... O'Connell, as Chief of Police of the City of Pensacola,. involving the validity of an ordinance for violation of which. petitioner was ...222, 172 So. 923;. Armour & Co. v. Virginia, 246 U.S. 1, 38 S.Ct. 267,. 62 L.Ed. 547; Richmond Linen Supply Co. v. City of. Lynchburg, 160 Va. 644, 169 S.E. 554 (Affirmed in Re. Richmond Linen ...635); American. Bakeries Co. v. City of Huntsville, 232 Ala. 612, 168. So. 880; Vaughan v. City of Richmond, 165 Va. 145,. 181 S.E. 372; State v. Gray, 192 Ark. 1045, 96. S.W.2d 447; ......
  • Larey v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 5--4325
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • October 23, 1967
    ...a distinction between intrastate and interstate commerce has been upheld as reasonable or appropriate. Cases such as Vaughan v. City of Richmond, 162 Va. 145, 181 S.E. 372, cited by appellant, upholding the imposition of higher license taxes on businesses of nonresidents than on businesses ......
  • 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