Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925

State v. Ivy Leaf & Piper Coal Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals · Decided August 4, 1925 · Samford

105 So. 437; 21 Ala. App. 85; 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 239 (Southern Reporter)

Counsel

F. D. McArthur, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Under schedule 29 defendant was due to pay the license for each yard operated. Only one business may be operated under a license. Acts 1919, p. 440, § 363; Graham v. City of Mobile, 17 Ala. App. 19 , 81 So. 355 ; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Marengo Co. Bank, 17 Ala. App. 47 , 81 So. 543 ; State v. Seals Piano Co., 209 Ala. 93 , 95 So. 451 ; Davis v. Thomas, 154 Ala. 279 , 45 So. 897 . Cabaniss, Johnston, Cocke Cabaniss and Sumner E. Thomas, all of Birmingham, for appellee. Taxing statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the citizen. 36 Cyc. 1189; State ex rel. Samson v. Sheridan, 25 Wyo. 347 , 170 P. 1 , 1 A.L.R. 955; Crowder v. Fletcher, 80 Ala. 219 ; Yarbrough Bros. v. Phillips, 209 Ala. 341 , 96 So. 414 . No dealing was done at the second yard, and no license therefor was due. Bates v. State Bank, 2 Ala. 451 ; Branch Bank v. Knox, 1 Ala. 148 ; Wilson v. Delaney, 137 Iowa, 636 , 113 N.W. 842 .

Opinion of the Court

SAMFORD, J.

Schedule 29, Coal or Coke Agents or Dealers, Acts 1919, § 361, p. 405, is to be found in and a part of the general revenue laws of the state, the design of. which is, not to- regulate the business therein specified, but to raise revenue, and therefore must be strictly construed. 36 Cyc. 1189.

Under the agreed statement of facts in this case, the defendant was conducting but one business of the kind named, and, having paid the required license therefor, the trial court properly rendered judgment in its favor.

We find no error,in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.