Acree v. Head

Supreme Court of Georgia

Acree v. Head

200 S.E. 677, 187 Ga. 203, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 790

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 23, 1938

DocketNo. 12478

StatusPublished

This text of 200 S.E. 677 (Acree v. Head) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acree v. Head, 200 S.E. 677, 187 Ga. 203, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 790 (Ga. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

A disabled world-war veteran prayed for mandamus requiring the State revenue commissioner to issue to him an exemption certificate “having such recitals, language, and provisions a's will not limit the number of employees to assist in the conduct of his business.” It is provided in section 22 of the general tax act of 1935 (Ga. L. 1935, p. 71), that “No person shall be exempt from any tax imposed who has more than one employee to assist in conducting such business.” In Head v. Wilkinson, 186 Ga. 739 (5) (198 S. E. 782), it was held that the above-quoted provision of the general tax act “must necessarily be taken as an implied amendment of the previous war-veteran exemption statutes (Code, § 84-2011 et seq.; Ga. L. 1935, p. 163), so as to preclude a claim of exemption from a State occupation tax imposed by the general tax act, where, contrary to section 22 of that act, the claimant ‘has more than one employee to assist in conducting such business.’ ” Held, that the court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer and dismissing the action.

Judgment ajjvi'med.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

A disabled world-war veteran prayed for mandamus requiring the State revenue commissioner to issue to him an exemption certificate “having such recitals, language, and provisions a's will not limit the number of employees to assist in the conduct of his business.” It is provided in section 22 of the general tax act of 1935 (Ga. L. 1935, p. 71), that “No person shall be exempt from any tax imposed who has more than one employee to assist in conducting such business.” In Head v. Wilkinson, 186 Ga. 739 (5) (198 S. E. 782), it was held that the above-quoted provision of the general tax act “must necessarily be taken as an implied amendment of the previous war-veteran exemption statutes (Code, § 84-2011 et seq.; Ga. L. 1935, p. 163), so as to preclude a claim of exemption from a State occupation tax imposed by the general tax act, where, contrary to section 22 of that act, the claimant ‘has more than one employee to assist in conducting such business.’ ” Held, that the court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer and dismissing the action.

Judgment ajjvi'med.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.E. 677, 187 Ga. 203, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acree-v-head-ga-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack