State v. Anniston Rolling Mills

125 Ala. 121
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 125 Ala. 121 (State v. Anniston Rolling Mills) 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
State v. Anniston Rolling Mills, 125 Ala. 121 (Ala. 1899).

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

This is an action by the State to recover a license tax from the appellee, Anniston Rolling Mills, for “doing'business as a corporation,” during.the year 1897. The suit was commenced in the justice court, and from the judgment of the justice the State appealed to the city court where the cause was tried without the intervention of a jury, and from the judgment of the city court, the State prosecutes its appeal to this court.

. The sole question presented here is, does the record show that the appellee was “doing business” within the meaning of the revenue law during said year. The tax imposed by the statute is a license tax 'for “doing business as a corporation,” and not for the mere privilege of existing as a corporation. The real test is, is the corporation engaged in the transaction of business, or any part of the business, for which it was organized or created. — Beard v. U. & A. Pub. Co., 71 Ala. 60; Sullivan v. Sullivan Timber Co., 103 Ala. 371.

The record shows that the appellee corporation was organized for the purpose of “buying, manufacturing and sale of iron, and of articles of merchandise or manufacture in which iron is used, and the buying and selling of such manufactured articles.” The record does not show that the appellee was engaged in the transaction or doing of such business or any part thereof during the [124]*124year 1897. Not one of the several acts of the corporation done by it during the year 1897, as shown by the record, constituted a doing of the business or any part of the business for which it was created, and were mere incidents for the preservation of its property. We think the two eases of Beard and Sullivan above cited are conclusive of this case.

The judgment of the city court is affirmed.

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

Related

State v. City Stores Company
171 So. 2d 121 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1965)
State v. Plantation Pipe Line Company
89 So. 2d 549 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
Simonetti Bros. Produce Co. v. Peter Fox Brewing Co.
197 So. 38 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
State Ex Rel. State Corp. Commission v. Old Abe Co.
1939 NMSC 046 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Eaton v. Hirst
79 P.2d 489 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1938)
City of Dothan v. Alabama Power Co.
155 So. 697 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Ford Motor Co. v. Hall Auto Co.
147 So. 603 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Norman v. Southwestern Railroad
157 S.E. 531 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Friedlander Bros. v. Deal
118 So. 508 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Boyette v. Preston Motors Corporation
89 So. 746 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Holman v. Durham Buggy Co.
76 So. 914 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Kimball v. Sundstrom & Stratton Co.
92 S.E. 737 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1917)
R. I. Hospital Trust Co. v. Rhodes
91 A. 50 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1914)
Alabama Western Railroad v. Talley-Bates Const. Co.
50 So. 341 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 Ala. 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anniston-rolling-mills-ala-1899.