City of Wilmington v. MacKs

86 N.C. 88
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 86 N.C. 88 (City of Wilmington v. MacKs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Wilmington v. MacKs, 86 N.C. 88 (N.C. 1882).

Opinion

Ashe, J.,

after stating the case. I was not on the bench when this case was argued in behalf of the defendant, but the case having been duly considered in conference, the court is of the opinion it is not now an open question, the principle involved having been decided in the case of Holland v. Isler, 77 N. C., 1.

The plaintiffs in that case were the commissioners of the town of Goldsboro, and the defendants were lawyers and physicians residing in said town. The charter of said corporation empowered the commissioners to tax lawyers, physicians, &c. The plaintiffs under that power given in their charter had assessed a monthly tax upon the defendants, which they resisted.

The court below held that the plaintiffs had the right to impose and collect said tax, and from the judgment rendered the defendants appealed to this court, where the judgment of the superior court was affirmed, and Reads, J. speaking for the court, said: “ The constitution provides *91 that the general assembly may tax trades, professions, &c. Art. V., § 3. The general assembly has authorized the town of Goldsboro to lay and collect a monthly tax on lawyers and physicians, &c. Private Laws 1866. The defendants are lawyers and physicians in the town of Goldsboro, and the town has laid a tax upon them which they refuse to pay. This would seem to make a clear case against them.”

Note. — The decision in Wilmington v. McRae, at this term, is the same as in the above case.

We think this case is decisive of that before us.

There is no error. The judgment is affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

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

Related

Davis v. Ogden City
215 P.2d 616 (Utah Supreme Court, 1950)
In Re Application of Galusha
195 P. 406 (California Supreme Court, 1921)
Davies v. Hot Springs
217 S.W. 769 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1920)
In re Dixon
183 P. 642 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1919)
Pocomoke Guano Co. v. City of New Bern
74 S.E. 2 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Lent v. Portland
71 P. 645 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1903)
Ex Parte Williams
21 L.R.A. 783 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1892)
Board of Commissioners v. Taylor
6 S.E. 114 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 N.C. 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-wilmington-v-macks-nc-1882.