Page images

not interfere with interstate commerce, and where it may prohibit, it may impose such restrictions as it pleases. Ex parte Christensen, 85 Cal. 213 and in matter of Bickerstaff, 70 Cal. 35.

In an action to recover a liquor license imposed by a county ordinance, the passage of the ordinance is proved, prima facie, by production of the ordinance book from the custody of the clerk containing a record of the ordinance and of its passage. And

Section 4045 Political Code was a new section added in 1883 [Stats. 1883, p. 297,] of date March 13. It specified particularly, in three subdivisions the classes of business on which license taxes might be imposed, and then provided that they should be collected as provided in section 3360 of the same code. This latter section provided that such taxes should be recovered by “suit in the name of the people of the state of California.” The county government act of 1883 was passed on the following day, and it repealed section 4045 and the effect of section 3360, and an ordinance passed pursuant to the county government act might properly provide that the suit should be brought in the name of the county or that it should be brought in the name of the people, as the supervisors might elect. And an action in assumpsit would lie for its recovery against one who engaged in business without procuring the proper license therefor. Mendocino County v. Bank of Mendocino, 86 Cal. 255.

The power to regulate and license the sale of liquors is distinct from the power to prohibit, and an ordinance which in terms proceeds under the power to regulate and impose a license tax, but in its effect amounts to prohibition, cannot be upheld. Merced County v. Fleming, 111 Cal. 49.

An ordinance of the board of supervisors establishing a license tax of twenty-five dollars per month for the sale of spirituous liquors will not be held void as being unreasonable or oppressive. Ex parte Benninger, 64 Cal. 292.

Section 4045 Political Code relating to license taxes added to the code by act of March 13, 1883, was repealed by the county government act passed the next day, [Ex parte Benjamin, 65 Cal. 310), section 184. The power to impose license taxes was conferred by subdivision 27 of section 25 of the latter act, and an ordinance for that purpose might be lawfully enacted on October 13, 1883. Santa Clara v. S. P. R. R. Co., 66 Cal. 644. But see Mendocino County v. Bank of Mendocino, 86 Cal. 255, infra.

The supervisors may appoint a license tax collector under their constitutional power to levy taxes "and provide for their collection." In re Lawrence, 69 Cal. 608. But see Ventura County v. Clay, 112 Cal. 66, infra.

The fact that a person pays a license tax to a city under city ordinances authorized by the act of 1885 [Stats. 1885, p. 127], does not exempt him from paying another license pursuant to ordinances of the board of supervisors. Matter of Lawrence, 69 Cal. 610. See Ex parte Roach, 104 Cal. 272, infra.

An ordinance of a board of supervisors levyo ing a license tax on all sheep pastured in the county, but exempting from payment thereof those persons who list their sheep as taxable property in that county, is unconstitutional, Section 21, article I, constitution. Lassen County v. Cone, 72 Cal. 387.

The board of supervisors had authority under subdivision 27 of section 25 of county government act to enact an ordinance imposing a license tax on persons engaged in the business of raising, grazing or herding sheep in their county, and to provide that a violation of the ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor. The constitutional provision requiring uniformity of taxation does not prohibit the imposition of a license tax upon a particular business, notwithstanding the property used in that business is subject to and has paid an ad valorem property tax. Ex parte Mirande, 73 Cal. 367.

But such tax must not discriminate between citizens of the county imposing the tax and citizens of other counties. Lassen County v. Cone, 72 Cal. 388; Eldorado County v. Meiss, 100 Cal. 268.

The legislature cannot impose a license tax which is to be paid into a city or county treasury. [Const. Sec. 12, Art. XI.) City and County of S. F. v. L. & L. & G. Ins. Co., 74 Cal. 113.

License tax cannot be imposed by supervisors upon a railroad transacting an interstate commerce business. San Benito County v. S. P. R. R. Co., 77 Cal. 518.

The fact that a bank, for a valuable consideration, obtained a license to transact its business, under an act [Stats. 1877-8, p. 740], of the legislature creating a board of bank commissioners, and prescribing their duties and powers, does not relieve it from liability to pay a license tax imposed by the board of supervisors pursuant to the county government act. And

Assumpsit will lie in the name of the county to collect a license tax against the person carrying on a business subject to the tax without having taken out the required license, where the ordinance of the supervisors authorizes the district attorney to institute such suit against any one required, but refusing to pay the same. And

The fact that a banking corporation, on payment of valuable consideration, procured a license to transact business under the act of 1878, creating a board of bank commissioners [Stats. p. 740], did not exempt such corporation from payment of a license tax prescribed by ordinance of the supervisors of the county in which it transacts its business. And

The county government act repealed section 4045 of the Political Code, added to that code on the day before the county government act was passed, and instead of licenses being collected, as provided by section 3360 of Political

In re

Code, the board of supervisors has power under section 25, subdivision 27, of the county government act to fix the rates of license and “provide for the rollection of the same by suit or otherwise." Mendocino County v. Bank of Mendocino, 86 Cal. 257.

Irrigation districts may be vested by the legislature with the power of taxation. Bonds of Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296.

And in a school district. Hughes v. Ewing, 93 Cal. 418.

The supervisors of a county have the power to license and collect a license tax from those doing business within incorporated cities within their county. [Citing Matter of Lawrence, 69 Cal. 608; People v. Martin, 60 Cal. 153.] And

The collection of a tax by civil action does not come within the exercise of the police power as a prohibitory measure. is exercised in the enforcement of a penalty for noncompliance with the law, or for the doing of some prohibited act.

But a county ordinance which imposes a license tax upon a single act of selling, and not upon a business, is not authorized by the law, and an action to recover the tax cannot be sustained. Merced County v. Helm, 102 Cal. 168; Ex parte Mason, 102 Cal. 172.

A county is not authorized to require a license tax for the act of selling liquor, but is authorized to impose such tax upon the business of selling liquors. An ordinance not directed at the business is unauthorized and

That power

« PreviousContinue »