Holland v. . Isler
Supreme Court of North Carolina
CONTROVERSY, submitted without action under C. C. P. § 315, and heard at Fall Term, 1876, of Wayne Superior Court, before Seymour, J. The plaintiffs are the Mayor, Commissioners and Tax-Collector of the Town of Goldsboro. The defendants are lawyers and physicians residing in said Town, and resisted the payment of a monthly tax assessed by the plaintiffs under the power granted in the charter of said Town.
Read the full summary
CONTROVERSY, submitted without action under C. C. P. § 315, and heard at Fall Term, 1876, of Wayne Superior Court, before Seymour, J. The plaintiffs are the Mayor, Commissioners and Tax-Collector of the Town of Goldsboro. The defendants are lawyers and physicians residing in said Town, and resisted the payment of a monthly tax assessed by the plaintiffs under the power granted in the charter of said Town. His Honor held that plaintiffs had a right to impose and collect the said tax. Judgment. Appeal by defendants.
1Opinion of the CourtReads, J.
The Constitution provides that “the General ‘Assembly may tax trades, professions, &c.” Art. Y. § 3. The General Assembly has authorized the Town of Golds-boro “to lay and collect a monthly tax on lawyers, physicians-&e.,” Private Laws, 1866.
The defendants are lawyers and physicians in the Town of Goldsboro, and the Town has laid a tax upon'them which they refuse to pay. This would seem 'to make a clear case against the defendants.
There is no error.
Per CuriaM. . Judgment affirmed»-
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. DoranSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Lent v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Board of Commissioners v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- State v. . DanenbergSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- City of Wilmington v. MacKsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.