Strand Amusement Co. v. City of LaGrange

Supreme Court of Georgia

Strand Amusement Co. v. City of LaGrange

127 S.E. 751, 160 Ga. 307, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 142

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 18, 1925

DocketNo. 4486

StatusPublished

This text of 127 S.E. 751 (Strand Amusement Co. v. City of LaGrange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Strand Amusement Co. v. City of LaGrange, 127 S.E. 751, 160 Ga. 307, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 142 (Ga. 1925).

Pincite

Opinions

Hill, J..

Strand Amusement Company brought an equitable petition against the City of LaGrange, to enjoin the enforcement of a certain business tax of $50 a day, which was subsequently, and before the trial of this case, reduced to $5 a day, on vaudeville, musical comedies, and other professional shows, other than picture-shows, on the ground that the tax was excessive and confiscatory. On the interlocutory hearing the evidence as to the unreasonableness and confiscatory feature of the tax was conflicting, and the trial judge refused to enjoin the collection of the tax. Held, that there was no abuse of discretion in refusing an injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., and Sines, J., dissenting.

Russell, C. J.

Aside from the question of conflicting evidence, the headnote does not deal with the legal question presented: whether the tax of $5 per day on vaudeville is or is not unreasonable. Eor that reason 1 can not agree to the opinion of the court.

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

Hill, J..

Strand Amusement Company brought an equitable petition against the City of LaGrange, to enjoin the enforcement of a certain business tax of $50 a day, which was subsequently, and before the trial of this case, reduced to $5 a day, on vaudeville, musical comedies, and other professional shows, other than picture-shows, on the ground that the tax was excessive and confiscatory. On the interlocutory hearing the evidence as to the unreasonableness and confiscatory feature of the tax was conflicting, and the trial judge refused to enjoin the collection of the tax. Held, that there was no abuse of discretion in refusing an injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., and Sines, J., dissenting.

Russell, C. J.

Aside from the question of conflicting evidence, the headnote does not deal with the legal question presented: whether the tax of $5 per day on vaudeville is or is not unreasonable. Eor that reason 1 can not agree to the opinion of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 751, 160 Ga. 307, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strand-amusement-co-v-city-of-lagrange-ga-1925.