Alabama Consolidated Coal & Iron Co. v. Herzberg

59 So. 305, 177 Ala. 248, 1912 Ala. LEXIS 292
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 25, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 59 So. 305 (Alabama Consolidated Coal & Iron Co. v. Herzberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alabama Consolidated Coal & Iron Co. v. Herzberg, 59 So. 305, 177 Ala. 248, 1912 Ala. LEXIS 292 (Ala. 1912).

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

Section 33a of the act of 1911, p. 181, reads as follows: “Any person, firm, or corporation who conducts a commissary or store at which their employees trade on checks, orders or other device shall pay an annual license tax as follows: When such person, firm or corporation employs less than fifty persons, thirty dollars; when more than fifty and less than one hundred are employed, fifty dollars, when more than one hundred persons are employed, one hundred dollars.”

It will be observed that this section does not impose a license tax upon persons, firms, or corporations conducting stores or commissaries, but only upon those wherein the employees trade upon checks, orders, or other devices. The tax is not, therefore, imposed upon the business, or upon all engaged in a similar business, but is based solely upon the manner in which a party may conduct the business; and the foregoing section is repugnant to the state and federal Constitutions, under the authority of City of Montgomery v. Kelly, 142 Ala. 552, 38 South. 67, 70 L. R. A. 209, 110, Am. St. Rep. [251]*25143. This case was approvingly cited and explained in tie ease of Mefford v. City of Sheffield, 148 Ala. 543, 41 South. 970.

Since the section in question must fall, it is needless to answer the other questions certified, as they go to the construction of same.

Simpson and Mayfield, JJ., concur in the opinion. Sayre, J., concurs in the conclusion. McClellan and Somerville, JJ., dissent.

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

Related

Ex Parte Melof
735 So. 2d 1172 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1999)
City of Birmingham v. Birmingham Business College, Inc.
56 So. 2d 111 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Department of Ind. Rel. v. West Boylston Mfg. Co.
42 So. 2d 787 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
Rochell v. City of Florence
188 So. 247 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
State v. Kartus
162 So. 538 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1935)
State v. Kartus
162 So. 533 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Bellingrath v. Town of Georgiana
121 So. 453 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)
Warrior Water Co. v. Long
117 So. 656 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Exchange Drug Co. v. State Tax Commission
117 So. 673 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Woco Pep Co. of Montgomery v. City of Montgomery
165 So. 214 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Maury v. State
93 So. 802 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Singer Sewing MacHine Co. v. Brickell
233 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Alabama Consolidated Coal & Iron Co. v. Herzberg
59 So. 806 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 So. 305, 177 Ala. 248, 1912 Ala. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alabama-consolidated-coal-iron-co-v-herzberg-ala-1912.