Warrior Water Co. v. Long
Decision Date | 28 June 1928 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 179 |
Citation | 117 So. 656,218 Ala. 125 |
Parties | WARRIOR WATER CO. v. LONG. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R.L. Blanton, Judge.
Action by the Warrior Water Company against E.W. Long, as Judge of Probate of Walker County, to recover license paid under protest. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Reversed and rendered.
Arthur Fite, of Jasper, for appellant.
Sowell & Gunn, of Jasper, for appellee.
The trial was had before the judge of the court without a jury and upon an agreed statement of facts. The judgment was for the defendant as probate judge, and plaintiff was taxed with the costs.
The appellant pursued the proper remedy for the redress of his wrongs, if such there were. Ala. Con. C. & I. Co. v Herzberg, 177 Ala. 248, 59 So. 305; Woco-Pep Co. of Montgomery v. City of Montgomery, 213 Ala. 452, 105 So. 214
.
The counsel for appellant has stated the question involved, which is found in subdivision (a) of "Schedule 89, Public Utilities," p. 427, General Acts 1919. It reads as follows:
(Italics supplied.)
It is further provided by the Revenue Act of 1919, § 377, p. 445:
(Italics supplied.)
It is the insistence of counsel for appellee that the foregoing provisions of the statute were within and present a sound basis for a distinction of class for levying a minimum license tax upon a new public utility. Under the authorities state and federal, the act with its classification is not void, since it is not discriminatory, arbitrary unreasonable, and without foundation. Woco-Pep Co. of Montgomery v. City of Montgomery, 213 Ala. 452, 457, 105 So. 214; Quartlebaum v. State, 79 Ala. 4 ( ); Williams v. State ex rel. Schwarz, 197 Ala. 46, 47, 72 So. 330, Ann.Cas.1918D, 869, for authorities; Republic I. & S. Co. v. State, 204 Ala. 469, 86 So. 65; Gamble v. Montgomery, 147 Ala. 682, 39 So. 353, (the trading stamp case); Ex parte Birmingham v. O'Connell, 195 Ala. 60, 63, 70 So. 184; Saks v. Birmingham, 120 Ala. 190, 24 So. 728; O'Hara v. State, 121 Ala. 28, 25 So. 622; N. C. & St. L. Ry. v. Attalla, 118 Ala. 362, 24 So. 450; Williams v. Talladega, 164 Ala. 633, 649, 51 So. 330; Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U.S. 730, 23 S.Ct. 401, 47 L.Ed. 669; Singer Co. v. Brickell, 233 U.S. 304, 34 S.Ct. 493, 58 L.Ed. 974, reviews the Alabama Case; 37 C.J. p. 198, § 52, subsec. 2; In re Clark's Guardianship, 104 Okl. 245, 230 P. 891, 43 A.L.R. 595, note; City of Louisville v. Sagalowski & Son, 136 Ky. 324, 124 S.W. 339, 136 Am.St.Rep. 258; In re Haskell, 112 Cal. 412, 44 P. 725, 32 L.R.A. 527; Ex parte Lemon, 143 Cal. 558, 77 P. 455, 65 L.R.A. 946. See, also, State v. Goldstein, 207 Ala. 585, 93 So. 308, for authorities.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States, and section 221, Constitution of Alabama, in Ex parte City of Birmingham v. O'Connell, supra, the court said, of the right to fix a rule of municipal license tax and toll the same:
The power to tax an occupation is not dependent upon and limited by its ability "to earn a profit" as the business or occupation is conducted; there may be competition or negligence or other contributing causes or considerations entering into and affecting the extent of business or occupation in the extent of business or ability to earn a profit. Williams v. City of Talladega, 164 Ala. 633, 649, 51 So. 330, Id., 226 U.S. 404, 33 S.Ct. 116, 57 L.Ed. 275; N.C. & St. L. Ry. v. Attalla, 118 Ala. 368, 24 So. 450; Woco-Pep Co. of Montg. v. City of Montgomery, supra. The evidence shows that the appellant was constructing its plant during the tax year and went into its business operations on September 1st, 1927, and showed a gross receipt for that month of $317.06. It is immaterial for such segment of the year whether this sum represented a profit or loss to the new business. A sufficient and reasonable time and due opportunity must be shown to challenge a taxing statute on the grounds that it is oppressive and confiscatory. Hale v. State (Ala.Sup.) 116 So. 369, 370; Woco-Pep Co. of Montgomery v. City of Montgomery, supra; Williams v. City of Talladega, 164 Ala. 633, 51 So. 330.
In the case of Quartlebaum v. State, 79 Ala. 1, 4, Mr. Chief Justice Stone declared the rule to be that:
And the observation as to such general rule has not been departed from in this or federal jurisdiction, and is not void if, in the administration of the law, the classification is reasonable and its application or administration does not offend the requirements as to equality. The Legislature made a general class of new public utilities, intended and declared that all new public utilities should come under that class, then subdivided the class into those which "took over old public utilities," and operated them and those which "did not take over old public utilities," but proceeded with construction. Under the agreed statement of facts, appellant comes within the last class or subdivision thereof. All public utilities coming under the provisions of that class, or the several subdivisions thereof, are treated alike. The distinction is inherent in the condition of operation and preparation therefor and is reasonable and sufficient classification for taxing purposes. General classifications may be subdivided into particular classes or reclassify members of a general class so long as there may be a substantial as distinguished from a fictitious basis for doing so. Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145, 1147. And this the Legislature has done in the instant statute and in so doing was within its power under organic law.
The assessment of other properties as stocks, bonds, moneys etc., was held a sufficient basis for distinction, to cover stocks in foreign railroad corporations owned by the person against whom such other assessment was made, in Kidd v. State, 188 U.S. 730, 23 S.Ct. 401, 47 L.Ed. 669; State v. Kidd, Ex'r, 125 Ala. 413, 28 So. 480. In Republic I. & S. Co. v. State, supra, the distinction for such classification was the method of taking the coal from the mine, held not to apply to wagon mines which do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. State Tax Commission of Alabama
...provisions of sections 44 to 52 of the Revenue Act of 1927 (Acts 1927, pp. 139, 174-176), is an excise or license tax and not a property tax. Long, Judge, v. Jasper Co., 217 Ala. 593, 117 So. 210; Garrison v. Hamlin, 215 Ala. 39, 109 So. 106; Hamilton v. Williams, 214 Ala. 89, 106 So. 500; ......
-
Frazier v. State Tax Commission
... ... U.S. 219, 31 S.Ct. 145, 55 L.Ed. 191; Bailey v ... State, 158 Ala. 18, 48 So. 498; Warrior Water Co. v ... Long, 218 Ala. 125, 117 So. 656 ... It is ... declared by this and ... ...
-
Rochell v. City of Florence
... ... along with Coca-Cola and Soda Water. He pays the City of ... Florence a license of $200 ... A. S ... Johnson testified ... also Exchange Drug Company v. State Tax Commission, ... 218 Ala. 115, 117 So. 673; Warrior Water Co. v ... Long, 218 Ala. 125, 117 So. 656; State v ... Kartus, 230 Ala. 352, 162 So. 533, ... ...
-
Findley v. State
...the power to tax an occupation is not dependent on and limited by its ability to earn a profit as it is conducted, Warrior Water Co. v. Long, 218 Ala. 125, 117 So. 656; nor can the reasonableness of a license tax be determined by the economic experience of a single business. This for the re......