Demopolis Finance Co. v. City of Demopolis

90 So. 2d 732, 265 Ala. 267, 1956 Ala. LEXIS 506
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1956
Docket2 Div. 303, 305
StatusPublished

This text of 90 So. 2d 732 (Demopolis Finance Co. v. City of Demopolis) 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
Demopolis Finance Co. v. City of Demopolis, 90 So. 2d 732, 265 Ala. 267, 1956 Ala. LEXIS 506 (Ala. 1956).

Opinion

GOODWYN, Justice.

Pursuant to authority given by Code 1940, Tit. 37, § 735, the City of Demopolis adopted a general license ordinance for the year 1951 providing, in pertinent part, as follows:

“Section 1. That every person, firm or corporation engaging in or carrying on any exhibition, trade, business, vocation, occupation, or profession within the City of Demopolis, Alabama, during the year 1951, shall take out and pay for an annual license for the [269]*269•privilege of engaging in or carrying on such exhibition, trade, business, vocation, or profession, as follows:
>5< % % i{c sje
“169. Loan Office..........$2500.00
“The term ‘Loan Office’ shall be defined as follows: Any person, co-partnership or corporation engaging in the business of making loans of money or things in action in the amount of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) or less; but •not including loans made to the ten.ants of such person, firm or corporation engaged in agriculture, nor to loans to persons whose principal business is farming, nor the business of financing the purchase of motor vehicles, refrigerators or other personal property which is purchased from the lender, nor shall it apply to credit unions as defined by law, nor to savings and loan associations as defined by law, nor to any bank organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama or under the laws of the United States, nor to loans insured or guaranteed by the United States or any of its agencies.”

We here note that the exclusion provision of schedule 169 is the same as that contained in the Harris Act, Act No. 159, appvd. June 23, 1945, Gen.Acts 1945, § 12, pp. 200, 203, regulating the business “of making loans of money or things in action in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300.00) or less”, and in Act No. 787, appvd. Sept. 11, 1951, Acts 1950-51, § 14, pp. 1385, 1392, amending the Harris Act.

The Dixie Finance Company, Southern Finance Company, and Demopolis Finance Company engaged in such loan business in-Demopolis and became subject to said license. Each of these companies paid the prescribed $2500 under protest and then filed a claim with the City Clerk for its repayment. The claims being denied by the city, these companies brought suits in the circuit court of Marengo County to recover the amounts so paid. Each of the • complaints consists of three counts, the first two being common counts. The third count in each case, relied on by the plaintiffs, contains the following allegations:

“ * * * that said Section 169 of said license code was arbitrary, unreasonable and confiscatory; that said Section 169 was unconstitutional and would result in the deprivation of the property of the plaintiff in violation of the Constitution of the United States and in violation of the Constitution of the State of Alabama; that said Section 169 was not passed in good faith for the purposes of raising revenue for the City of Demopolis, but was passed for the purpose of prohibiting and preventing the plaintiff from carrying on a lawful and useful business within the City of Demopolis; * * * that said license is so unreasonable and excessive as to amount to the prohibition of the carrying on of a legitimate and - , useful trade or occupation within the City of Demopolis; that said license:>• or tax is void in that it is imposed up.^. on such terms and conditions as to operate as the virtual prohibition of a useful or lawful business or trade. * * * »

By agreement, the three cases were tried together. The evidence was taken orally before the trial court without a jury. Judgment in each case was rendered in favor of the city. All three plaintiffs took an appeal. Thereafter, prior to submission here, the Southern Finance Company dismissed its appeal. By agreement, the appeals in the other two cases were submitted together on one transcript.

The trial court wrote an opinion, the same in each case, making certain factual findings and giving the basis for its decision. It seems to us that that opinion adequately states the case. The opinion is as follows:

“The plaintiff sues to recover from the defendant the sum of $2,500, with interest thereon, paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as a license tax for the year 1951 [270]*270pursuant to Section 169 of the License Code of the City of Demopolis for that calendar year, which license code was introduced in evidence in this cause as plaintiff’s Exhibit 9. Counts one and two of the plaintiff’s complaint are on the common counts. Count three of the plaintiff’s complaint alleges among other things that said Section 169 of the License Code is arbitrary, unreasonable and confiscatory, and hence invalid under the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Alabama.

“By Section 169 of the License Code a license tax in the sum of $2,500 was imposed on the companies engaged in the small loan business in Demopolis. There is no question but that the plaintiff falls within the designation of a ‘loan office’ as that phrase is defined in the Demopolis Code. The plaintiff paid the tax imposed upon it by that license code, filed appropriate claims for refund, and upon the rejection of such claims filed the complaint in this action. Defendant plead the general issue.

“Findings of Fact

“(1) Prior to' January 1, 1951, there were in operation in Demopolis, Alabama, three loan companies, the plaintiffs in this proceedings. Of those three, Dixie Finance Company had been in operation for not more than two months prior to January 1, 1951. Prior to that date Southern Finance Company had been in operation for approximately nineteen months; the Demopolis Finance Company was organized January 1, 1948, as successor to an individual proprietorship which had begun business in Demopolis during 1947.

“(2) The audit report of the City of Demopolis for its fiscal year 1951 was admitted in evidence. The total receipts by the City of license taxes for its fiscal year 1951, as disclosed by that audit report, aggregate $43,238.68, including receipts from the license tax imposed upon wholesale distributors of gasoline, License Code, Section 129-130. The same audit report discloses aggregate receipts by the City with respect to other taxes imposed by it, such as automobile license, ad valorem taxes and others.

“(3) The results of the plaintiff’s operation since its organization in November, 1950, and the results “obtained by Southern Finance Company since its organization in May, 1949, and by Demopolis Finance Company since January 1, 1949, are properly 'summarized as follows:

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

Related

A. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton
292 U.S. 40 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Bessemer Theatres, Inc. v. City of Bessemer
75 So. 2d 651 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
State v. Pure Oil Co.
55 So. 2d 843 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Franks v. City of Jasper
68 So. 2d 306 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1953)
Mobile Battle House, Inc. v. City of Mobile
78 So. 2d 642 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of NJ
294 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court, 1935)
City of Prichard v. Harold
186 So. 504 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
City of Birmingham v. Louisville N. R. Co.
112 So. 742 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Giglio v. Barrett
92 So. 668 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
City of Prichard v. Richardson
17 So. 2d 451 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
City of Prichard v. Harold
186 So. 499 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1938)
American Bakeries Co. v. City of Huntsville
168 So. 880 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
City of Andalusia v. Fletcher
198 So. 64 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
City of Birmingham v. Wilson
172 So. 292 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1936)
City of Bessemer v. Bessemer Theatres, Inc.
39 So. 2d 658 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
Walden v. City of Montgomery
108 So. 231 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
City of Birmingham v. Wilson
172 So. 295 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. City of Decatur
81 So. 199 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Standard Chemical & Oil Co. v. City of Troy
77 So. 383 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Van Hook v. City of Selma
70 Ala. 361 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 So. 2d 732, 265 Ala. 267, 1956 Ala. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demopolis-finance-co-v-city-of-demopolis-ala-1956.