Witham v. Stewart

Supreme Court of Georgia

Witham v. Stewart

58 S.E. 463, 129 Ga. 48, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 302

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 10, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 58 S.E. 463 (Witham v. Stewart) 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

Witham v. Stewart, 58 S.E. 463, 129 Ga. 48, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 302 (Ga. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, J.

1. .Section 2, par. 2, of the act of the General Assembly, approved December 16th, 1902 (A. ’02, p. 19), provides that a “specific-tax” of $10, for each of the fiscal years 1903 and 1904, shall be levied “upon the presidents of each of the express, telegraph, steamboat, railroad, street-railroad, telephone, electric-light, sleeping and palace-car companies, banks, building and loan associations, and gas companies doing business in this State.” Held, that under the provisions of said act, where it appears that the same person is the president of two or more banks, a tax of $10 may he collected from such person for each bank of which he is president. It appearing in the present case that the plaintiff in error was the president of several banks doing business in this State, he was liable to be taxed in the amount specified in the above act for each bank of which he was the president.

2. The tax in question is not repugnant to par. 1, sec. 2, art. 7 of the constitution of this State; nor is such tax obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution, as denying to any person “the equal protection of the laws.” Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 97 Ga. 114, 35 L. R. A. 497, 25 S. E. 249.

3. It appearing that the president of the banks, from whom the taxes were sought to be collected, was a resident of Fulton county, it was proper for the tax-collector of that county to collect the amount. due by the said president as taxes under ' the provisions of the act above referred to; and the court did not err in refusing to enjoin the collection of the same.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

[49]*49Cited by counsel: Ga. R. 8/23; 9/253; 13/309; 14/438; 16/102; 21/59; 27/357; 33/623; 34/310; 35/124; 36/460; 40/201; 42/424, 596; 45/85; 49/195; 50/530; 51/252; 52/257; 53/44, 588; 54/330; 59/535, 806; 60/99, 137, 597; 62/645; 64/128, 789; 69/583, 686; 76/263; 82/138; 84/685; 87/400; 89/642; 97/116; 101/293; 105/567; 109/63, 77, 90, 103; 113/595; 114/397; 118/59; 121/412. Cooley on Tax. (2d ed.) 571, 586, (3d ed.) 5, 28, 29, 573, 586, 595, 1147, 1412, 1415; Cooley’s Con. Lim. 201, 479, 609; 2 Story, 359; 3 Hun, 84; 45 Am. D. 593; 52 Am. D. 331; 20 Am. E. 654; 21 Am. R. 765; 4 Wheat. 430; 9 Wall. 353; 18 Wall. 5, 10, 36, 37; 8 Wall. 538; 16 Wis. 136; 15 Kan. 627; 62 Pa. St. 491; 39 Ind. 429; 13 Gratt. 767; 16 Cal. 119 ; 139 U. S. 591; 46 Fed. 221; 65 Fed. 856; 70 Fed. 1; Dill. Mnn. Cor. §367.

Ellis, Wimbish & Ellis, for plaintiff. John G. Hart, attorney-general, and PL. M. Patty, for defendant.

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

Beck, J.

1. .Section 2, par. 2, of the act of the General Assembly, approved December 16th, 1902 (A. ’02, p. 19), provides that a “specific-tax” of $10, for each of the fiscal years 1903 and 1904, shall be levied “upon the presidents of each of the express, telegraph, steamboat, railroad, street-railroad, telephone, electric-light, sleeping and palace-car companies, banks, building and loan associations, and gas companies doing business in this State.” Held, that under the provisions of said act, where it appears that the same person is the president of two or more banks, a tax of $10 may he collected from such person for each bank of which he is president. It appearing in the present case that the plaintiff in error was the president of several banks doing business in this State, he was liable to be taxed in the amount specified in the above act for each bank of which he was the president.

2. The tax in question is not repugnant to par. 1, sec. 2, art. 7 of the constitution of this State; nor is such tax obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution, as denying to any person “the equal protection of the laws.” Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 97 Ga. 114, 35 L. R. A. 497, 25 S. E. 249.

3. It appearing that the president of the banks, from whom the taxes were sought to be collected, was a resident of Fulton county, it was proper for the tax-collector of that county to collect the amount. due by the said president as taxes under ' the provisions of the act above referred to; and the court did not err in refusing to enjoin the collection of the same.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

[49]*49Cited by counsel: Ga. R. 8/23; 9/253; 13/309; 14/438; 16/102; 21/59; 27/357; 33/623; 34/310; 35/124; 36/460; 40/201; 42/424, 596; 45/85; 49/195; 50/530; 51/252; 52/257; 53/44, 588; 54/330; 59/535, 806; 60/99, 137, 597; 62/645; 64/128, 789; 69/583, 686; 76/263; 82/138; 84/685; 87/400; 89/642; 97/116; 101/293; 105/567; 109/63, 77, 90, 103; 113/595; 114/397; 118/59; 121/412. Cooley on Tax. (2d ed.) 571, 586, (3d ed.) 5, 28, 29, 573, 586, 595, 1147, 1412, 1415; Cooley’s Con. Lim. 201, 479, 609; 2 Story, 359; 3 Hun, 84; 45 Am. D. 593; 52 Am. D. 331; 20 Am. E. 654; 21 Am. R. 765; 4 Wheat. 430; 9 Wall. 353; 18 Wall. 5, 10, 36, 37; 8 Wall. 538; 16 Wis. 136; 15 Kan. 627; 62 Pa. St. 491; 39 Ind. 429; 13 Gratt. 767; 16 Cal. 119 ; 139 U. S. 591; 46 Fed. 221; 65 Fed. 856; 70 Fed. 1; Dill. Mnn. Cor. §367.

Ellis, Wimbish & Ellis, for plaintiff. John G. Hart, attorney-general, and PL. M. Patty, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 S.E. 463, 129 Ga. 48, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witham-v-stewart-ga-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack