City of Sacramento v. California Stage Co.

12 Cal. 134
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 12 Cal. 134 (City of Sacramento v. California Stage Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Sacramento v. California Stage Co., 12 Cal. 134 (Cal. 1859).

Opinion

Baldwin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.

Under a provision of the City Charter, the authorities have power to levy and collect a license tax on theatres, and on trades, professions and business,” etc. Under this section of the Charter, they imposed the tax on the defendants, who are a Company whose office and place of business is in the city, but whose business is the carriage of passengers from and to the city. The question is made whether, inasmuch as the larger portion of this work of transportation is done without the territorial limits of the city, the authorities have a right to levy this tax upon them; and, on this question, we have no doubt. The Company receive and discharge their passengers, and make contracts here for their conveyance, and they have their offices and property here, within the pretection of the municipal laws. The mere fact that the business of carrying the passengers is not within the municipal limits, does not make the receiving and discharging of them and for contracting for them less a business here.

If this business is not a business in Sacramento, it is difficult to say where it is. The Company have as much need of the protection of the laws of the corporation, and are as much interested in the police expenditures, especially for streets, roads, etc., as any other persons, and we think are within the words and spirit of the taxing power.

Judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Bentley-Gray Dry Goods Co. v. City of Tampa
188 So. 758 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Star Transportation Co. v. City of Mason City
195 Iowa 930 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1923)
Ex Parte Beck
241 S.W. 172 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Nebraska Telephone Co. v. City of Lincoln
117 N.W. 284 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1908)
City of Topeka v. Jones
86 P. 162 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
City of Leavenworth v. Smith
48 P. 924 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1897)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. City of Fremont
26 L.R.A. 698 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
City of Newton v. Atchison
31 Kan. 151 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1883)
City of Los Angeles v. Southern Pacific Railroad
61 Cal. 59 (California Supreme Court, 1882)
City of Santa Cruz v. Santa Cruz Railroad
56 Cal. 143 (California Supreme Court, 1880)
City of San José v. San José & Santa Clara R.R.
53 Cal. 475 (California Supreme Court, 1879)
City of Dubuque v. Illinois Central Railroad
39 Iowa 56 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1874)
Pacific Railroad v. Cass County
53 Mo. 17 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Cal. 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-sacramento-v-california-stage-co-cal-1859.