Ohio Valley Telephone Co. v. City of Louisville
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 25. — ACTION BY THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE AGAINST THE OHIO VALLEY TELEPHONE CO. TO RECOVER A FRANCHISE TAX. — Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Chancery Branch, 1st Div.) Shackelford Miller, Judge. Judgment for Plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Case 25. — ACTION BY THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE AGAINST THE OHIO VALLEY TELEPHONE CO. TO RECOVER A FRANCHISE TAX. — Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Chancery Branch, 1st Div.) Shackelford Miller, Judge. Judgment for Plaintiff. Defendant appeals. 1. The city, being a municipal corporation, has no power of taxation, except such as may be specifically granted to it by the legislature. 2. The fiscal year, for the purposes of taxation is a unit, and property not subject to taxation at the beginning of that fiscal year, could not be made subject to taxation for that year by the mere passage of an…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge Barker.
Reversing.
This action was instituted by the city of Louisville on the 1st day of August, 1898, for the purpose of recovering judgment on a tax bill for $2,477.06, being a franchise tax assessed against the appellant, Ohio Valley Telephone Company, for the fiscal year commencing on the 1st day of September, 1892, and ending on the 31st day of August, 1893.
It is not contended by the city that, on the 1st day of September, .1892, at which time the assessment of property for municipal purposes was constructively made, there was any law in existence for the assessment of a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Long v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1895
- City of Middlesboro v. Coal & Iron BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1900
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. Crete Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Richardson v. State National BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909