City of Albany v. Newark Shoe Stores Co.

110 S.E. 283, 152 Ga. 557, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 218
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 13, 1922
DocketNo. 2696
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 283 (City of Albany v. Newark Shoe Stores Co.) 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
City of Albany v. Newark Shoe Stores Co., 110 S.E. 283, 152 Ga. 557, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 218 (Ga. 1922).

Opinions

Gilbert, J.

1. The Newark Shoe Stores Company .conducted a retail shoe business in a storehouse in the City of Albany. It had paid all taxes due by it to the city for conducting that business. The corporation employed a salesman and manager to work both at its storehouse and also at intervals to go out into said city from house to house, exhibit samples of shoes, and solicit customers to visit the store and buy shoes the samples of which he had displayed. Held:

(а) Such solicitation of trade did not constitute a business separate and distinct from that of selling merchandise, but was merely an instrumentality in or an incident to that business, being in its nature incapable of such separate existence as to constitute in itself a business in either the legal or commercial sense.

(б) The authority under the municipal charter to levy and collect a specific or occupation tax on all businesses, occupations, professions, callings, or trades, did not authorize the adoption of an ordinance separating from the business of selling merchandise the incident of calling from house to house and soliciting trade as above described, for the purpose of increasing sales, and classifying such solicitation as a separate business subject to taxation. Hewin v. Atlanta, 121 Ga. 723 (49 S. E. 765, 67 L. R. A. 795, 2 Ann. Cas. 296), and authorities cited.

2. Applying the principles ruled in the preceding headnote, the court did not err in granting an injunction restraining the collection of a tax of $200 on the petitioners for such solicitations as above described, the city having caused the arrest of the employee on penal charge of violating the city ordinance, and threatening to rearrest him for each act of so soliciting trade, and also to proceed by the issuance of an execution against the Shoe Stores Company for the amount of the tax. Baldwin v. Atlanta, 147 Ga. 28 (92 S. E. 630).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., dissenting. [558]*558No. 2696. January 13, 1922. Injunction. Before Judge E. C. Bell. Dougherty superior court. May 30, 1931. James lift Mann, for plaintiff in error. Pottle & Hofmayer, contra.

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

Related

Tinley v. City Council
189 S.E. 413 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Corley v. City of Atlanta
182 S.E. 177 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Derst Baking Co. v. Mayor of Savannah
179 S.E. 763 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
McIntyre v. Harrison
157 S.E. 499 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Brown v. City of Thomasville
118 S.E. 854 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 S.E. 283, 152 Ga. 557, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-albany-v-newark-shoe-stores-co-ga-1922.