Winslett v. Case-Fowler Lumber Co.

160 S.E. 384, 173 Ga. 539, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 350
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 17, 1931
DocketNo. 8004
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 160 S.E. 384 (Winslett v. Case-Fowler Lumber Co.) 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
Winslett v. Case-Fowler Lumber Co., 160 S.E. 384, 173 Ga. 539, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 350 (Ga. 1931).

Opinions

Pur Curiam.

A motion for a rehearing having been granted in this case, upon reconsideration of the questions raised, the court has reached the opinion that paragraph 66 of section 2 of the general tax act of 1927, as amended in 1929, imposing an occupation tax on manufacturers of and dealers in lumber and lumber products, is so vague and indefinite as to be unenforceable as to manufacturers of or dealers in lumber products, but is not void in so far as it affects manufacturers of or dealers in lumber; and the judgment of the court below, granting an injunction, should be modified in accordance with this ruling.

The court is of the opinion that the act in question is not unconstitutional on the ground that there was no reasonable basis for the classification which' put a specified tax upon a dealer in or near a city of a certain size and a different tax upon a dealer near a city having a different population.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur, except

[540]*540Beck, P. J., and Hines, J., who dissent from so much of tlie ruling stated in the first division as holds that the statute in question is unenforceable in so far as it imposes a tax on manufacturers of and dealers in “lumber products,” and Russell, C. J., and Atkinson, J., who dissent from the ruling stated in the second division.

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

Related

Southern Railway Co. v. Brooks
145 S.E.2d 76 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
City of Atlanta v. Southern Railway Co.
101 S.E.2d 707 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
Griffin v. State
24 S.E.2d 399 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
County of Bibb v. Winslett
14 S.E.2d 108 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Trinity Portland Cement Co. v. State
144 S.W.2d 329 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Gazan v. Heery
187 S.E. 371 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Wright v. City of Atlanta
177 S.E. 753 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Ex parte Mehlman
75 S.W.2d 689 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Guerry v. Harrison
173 S.E. 831 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Seattle
21 P.2d 721 (Washington Supreme Court, 1933)
Board of Tax-Assessors v. Catledge
160 S.E. 909 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 S.E. 384, 173 Ga. 539, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winslett-v-case-fowler-lumber-co-ga-1931.