Early Daniel Co. v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Court of Appeals

Early Daniel Co. v. City of Cincinnati

5 N.E.2d 409, 53 Ohio App. 397, 20 Ohio Law. Abs. 373, 5 Ohio Op. 153, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 335

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 1935

DocketNo 4766

StatusPublished

This text of 5 N.E.2d 409 (Early Daniel Co. v. City of Cincinnati) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Early Daniel Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 5 N.E.2d 409, 53 Ohio App. 397, 20 Ohio Law. Abs. 373, 5 Ohio Op. 153, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 335 (Ohio Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By HAMILTON, J.

That the tax was illegal was determined in the case of Hanke Bros, et v City of Cincinnati, No. 4031, Court of Appeals, Hamilton County, affirmed by a divided court in 125 Oh St, 639. The trial court was correct in holding the tax was illegal.

It is contended by plaintiff in error that §12075, GC, is not applicable, that that section refers only to general taxation and not to special taxes, such as occupational tax. There is nothing in the section to .indicate such a classification. It provides for the recovery of back taxes illegally assessed. That the occupational tax is a tax has never been questioned. It is not a license. It is a levy of taxes for the general purposes of the city. The statute applies, and the trial court was correct in so holding.

*374 The trial court did, however, improperly allow interest on the amount awarded as liot barred by the statute of limitations. See: City of Cincinnati v Cincinnati Street Ry. Co., 45 Oh Ap, 511, (15 Abs 347). The amount of interest awarded was $29.50. The judgment of the trial court will, therefore be modified by reducing the final judgment from $206.55 to $177.05, and, as modified, will be affirmed.

ROSS/ PJ, and MATTHEWS, J, concur.

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

OPINION

By HAMILTON, J.

That the tax was illegal was determined in the case of Hanke Bros, et v City of Cincinnati, No. 4031, Court of Appeals, Hamilton County, affirmed by a divided court in 125 Oh St, 639. The trial court was correct in holding the tax was illegal.

It is contended by plaintiff in error that §12075, GC, is not applicable, that that section refers only to general taxation and not to special taxes, such as occupational tax. There is nothing in the section to .indicate such a classification. It provides for the recovery of back taxes illegally assessed. That the occupational tax is a tax has never been questioned. It is not a license. It is a levy of taxes for the general purposes of the city. The statute applies, and the trial court was correct in so holding.

*374 The trial court did, however, improperly allow interest on the amount awarded as liot barred by the statute of limitations. See: City of Cincinnati v Cincinnati Street Ry. Co., 45 Oh Ap, 511, (15 Abs 347). The amount of interest awarded was $29.50. The judgment of the trial court will, therefore be modified by reducing the final judgment from $206.55 to $177.05, and, as modified, will be affirmed.

ROSS/ PJ, and MATTHEWS, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.E.2d 409, 53 Ohio App. 397, 20 Ohio Law. Abs. 373, 5 Ohio Op. 153, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/early-daniel-co-v-city-of-cincinnati-ohioctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack