State v. . Worth
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Defendant was charged with violation of city ordinance of "Wilmington and appealed from the ruling of the Mayor to the Criminal Court of New HaNOver, at the January, 1895, Term of which he was tried before Meares, I., and a jury. The city tax laid against defendant as- an ice dealer is under the following : “ For the storage, manufacture or sale of ice at wholesale, with privilege of retailing, $66 per annum,” which he insists is illegal.
Read the full summary
Defendant was charged with violation of city ordinance of "Wilmington and appealed from the ruling of the Mayor to the Criminal Court of New HaNOver, at the January, 1895, Term of which he was tried before Meares, I., and a jury. The city tax laid against defendant as- an ice dealer is under the following : “ For the storage, manufacture or sale of ice at wholesale, with privilege of retailing, $66 per annum,” which he insists is illegal. Upon the trial below the jury found a special verdict, as follows: “ That on June, 1894, the defendant carried on the busi-. ness of ice manufacturer,…
1Opinion of the Court
.Avert, J.:
The Constitution of North Carolina (Art. Y, Sec. 3) authorizes the Legislature to tax trades, professions, franchises and incomes. This power may be exercised directly for State purposes, or delegated by statute to the counties and towns as governmental agencies in order to provide for municipal expenses. The statute (The Code, Sec. 3800) empowers cities and towns to levy taxes “on all persons, property, privileges and subjects within the corporate limits, which are liable to taxation for State and County purposes.” The amended city charter (Laws of 1876-’77, Ch. 192, Sec. 9)…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- May v. SloanSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
3Cited by35 opinions
- Neill v. HillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- State v. . DixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- State v. DixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- City of Los Angeles v. Rancho Homes, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1953
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.