Lane v. Commissioners.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Lane v. Commissioners.

52 S.E. 140, 139 N.C. 443, 1905 N.C. LEXIS 149

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 7, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 S.E. 140 (Lane v. Commissioners.) 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

Lane v. Commissioners., 52 S.E. 140, 139 N.C. 443, 1905 N.C. LEXIS 149 (N.C. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

CoNNOR, J.,

after stating the case: The defendants contend that the facts set forth brings the case within the decision in State v. Roberson, 136 N. C., 587. It will be noted *445 that the jury in that case found by a special, verdict that the defendant “did engage in the business of procuring laborers for employment out of the State, to-wit: for one E. IT. Jones, in the State of Georgia, without having paid,” etc. This finding brought the defendant clearly within the language and spirit of the statute.

This case, in our opinion, comes within the principle of Carr v. Commissioners, 136 N. C., 125 — the only difference between the two cases being that in one the plaintiff hired hands for himself, while in the other he hired for a corporation of which he was director and manager, in respect to the work for which the hands were employed. In neither case can it be said the plaintiff was “engaged in the business of hiring hands,” etc. We cannot perceive any distinction be- ■ tween the cases because of this difference. As we said in both cases (following Moore’s case, 113 N. C., 697; 22 L. R. A., 472; and Hunt’s case, 129 N. C., 686; 85 Am. St. Rep. 758), the statute is a revenue measure imposing a tax upon the business of hiring hands, etc. Its validity can be sustained only upon this view. We do not intend to hold that a corporation, engaged in business in another State, may employ an agent to come into this State and “engage in the business” of hiring hands without being amenable to the tax. We simply hold that an officer of a foreign corporation, coming here under the circumstances set forth in this record, and hiring hands for employment by himself, as the officer of the corporation, is not “engaged in the business,” etc. It may be difficult to draw the line in advance, so as to make the de-markation clear. AYe can only decide each case as it comes to us, keeping in view the general principle announced in Moore’s case, and in Runt’s case, supra.

We concur with His Honor. The judgment must be

Affirmed.

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

CoNNOR, J.,

after stating the case: The defendants contend that the facts set forth brings the case within the decision in State v. Roberson, 136 N. C., 587. It will be noted *445 that the jury in that case found by a special, verdict that the defendant “did engage in the business of procuring laborers for employment out of the State, to-wit: for one E. IT. Jones, in the State of Georgia, without having paid,” etc. This finding brought the defendant clearly within the language and spirit of the statute.

This case, in our opinion, comes within the principle of Carr v. Commissioners, 136 N. C., 125 — the only difference between the two cases being that in one the plaintiff hired hands for himself, while in the other he hired for a corporation of which he was director and manager, in respect to the work for which the hands were employed. In neither case can it be said the plaintiff was “engaged in the business of hiring hands,” etc. We cannot perceive any distinction be- ■ tween the cases because of this difference. As we said in both cases (following Moore’s case, 113 N. C., 697; 22 L. R. A., 472; and Hunt’s case, 129 N. C., 686; 85 Am. St. Rep. 758), the statute is a revenue measure imposing a tax upon the business of hiring hands, etc. Its validity can be sustained only upon this view. We do not intend to hold that a corporation, engaged in business in another State, may employ an agent to come into this State and “engage in the business” of hiring hands without being amenable to the tax. We simply hold that an officer of a foreign corporation, coming here under the circumstances set forth in this record, and hiring hands for employment by himself, as the officer of the corporation, is not “engaged in the business,” etc. It may be difficult to draw the line in advance, so as to make the de-markation clear. AYe can only decide each case as it comes to us, keeping in view the general principle announced in Moore’s case, and in Runt’s case, supra.

We concur with His Honor. The judgment must be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 S.E. 140, 139 N.C. 443, 1905 N.C. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-commissioners-nc-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack