State v. Hirn

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Hirn

46 La. Ann. 1443

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 15, 1894

DocketNo. 11,511

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 46 La. Ann. 1443 (State v. Hirn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hirn, 46 La. Ann. 1443 (La. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

The State proceeding by rule seeks to recover from defendant a license tax for conducting the business of a barber. [1444]*1444The defence is that the State Constitution exempts mechanical pursuits from license taxes, and that defendant, a mechanic, is within the exemption.

That the occupation of a barber is mechanical admits of no dispute. His labor is manual, using with his hands the instruments required for his employment. He comes within the definition of a mechanic and his pursuit has been recognized as mechanical by the decisions of this court. State vs. Deilenschneider, 44 An. 1116.

The exemption claimed is denied by the State, because he employs other barbers to assist in serving his customers. We do not perceive that availing himself of the assistance of other barbers takes him out of the exemption. He is still a barber, although working with others. He and they are alike exempt from license taxes.

The State relies on the twelfth section of the license Act No. 150 of 1890. That undertakes to tax mechanics who employ assistance. Thus while the Constitution exempts all engaged in mechanical pursuits, the statute proposes to tax mechanics who employ assistance. This is manifestly contrary to the Constitution and has been so held by this court. City vs. Bailey, 35 An. 545; City vs. Lagman, 43 An. 1180. We are also referred by the State to the decisions that master builders are not mechanics, although they sometimes themselves do mechanical work. The decisions simply hold that the main occupation of the master builder, liable to a license tax, is not changed to that of a mechanic, exempt from such tax, merely because the master builder occasionally does the mechanic’s work. Tax Collector vs. Conner, 42 An. 787; State vs. McNally, 45 An. 46. These decisions afford no aid to the State in this case.

The decision of the lower court was for the defendant and is affirmed with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

The State proceeding by rule seeks to recover from defendant a license tax for conducting the business of a barber. [1444]*1444The defence is that the State Constitution exempts mechanical pursuits from license taxes, and that defendant, a mechanic, is within the exemption.

That the occupation of a barber is mechanical admits of no dispute. His labor is manual, using with his hands the instruments required for his employment. He comes within the definition of a mechanic and his pursuit has been recognized as mechanical by the decisions of this court. State vs. Deilenschneider, 44 An. 1116.

The exemption claimed is denied by the State, because he employs other barbers to assist in serving his customers. We do not perceive that availing himself of the assistance of other barbers takes him out of the exemption. He is still a barber, although working with others. He and they are alike exempt from license taxes.

The State relies on the twelfth section of the license Act No. 150 of 1890. That undertakes to tax mechanics who employ assistance. Thus while the Constitution exempts all engaged in mechanical pursuits, the statute proposes to tax mechanics who employ assistance. This is manifestly contrary to the Constitution and has been so held by this court. City vs. Bailey, 35 An. 545; City vs. Lagman, 43 An. 1180. We are also referred by the State to the decisions that master builders are not mechanics, although they sometimes themselves do mechanical work. The decisions simply hold that the main occupation of the master builder, liable to a license tax, is not changed to that of a mechanic, exempt from such tax, merely because the master builder occasionally does the mechanic’s work. Tax Collector vs. Conner, 42 An. 787; State vs. McNally, 45 An. 46. These decisions afford no aid to the State in this case.

The decision of the lower court was for the defendant and is affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 La. Ann. 1443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hirn-la-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack