Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-03-26
WAREHOUSES;.
Important Decisions Affecting Gotten
Merchants by Recorder DuG.

Recorder Daff had before him yesser
day EeVeral cases sgeinEt merchants
who were arrested Oh Tie charge OF keep
ing warehouses without license. AmonI
the humber we mention the firms o
Hill, FOntsine d Co, Brooke, Neely
Co., billiard & Coffin, Porter, Taylor
c., 4. c, Tfeadwen & Co, Stewart
Gwynne & Co Fsrgason d Co., n. L
Meacham & Co., and number OF Others
In order 70 test the legality Of the oity's
levy of the License referred to, it was De,
termined to make test case, and sub.
nit IL TO the recorder, the city-attorney
appearing for the city, and Messrs. Clap,
aud Meux for the dsfsnse. The ease
chosen was ''The City Of Eemphis
against Hill, f0ntaine 4 Co.. which
was ably argued by counsel on both
sides, and resulted in the following
OPINION BY RECORDER DUFF:
The above casa was submitted "a a
test-cas cut OF a number CT warrants OF
arrest is;ued against shndfy merchants
OF the city charged with violstion of
me city ordinances which assess a priv
iiepe- "a upon them as owners or keep,
ers OF warehouses.
Th5 language OF the ordinance under
which the warrants Issued is ss follows:
Every owner or keeper OF a shed,
warehouse, or other place foI the storage
Of cotton or Other articles, for each plGe5
ptr snutm one bHndrtd dollars. City
Cd. art: iii, sec. 2l0, sub-sec. 2.
This ordinance l hold to be illegt and
void, for several sons: First, il is not
author zed by any act Of the legis ature,
neither the city chsrter, nor elsewhere.
There is not an act Of the legs ature de.
clsTing warehouses; to fail under the head
OF privileges, or requirirg G the owner or
keeper Of them to take out License; and
ii is well settled Il at municipal corpora
tiOns can perform no dct aud exercise
no power not authorized by the act OF
Incorporation; that they have, there
fore, no power to create privilege for
the purpose Of taxing it, or levy tax
upon anything that is not recognized as
q taxable subject by the Legislature.
The authorities upon this subject in cur
own State and elsewhere, speak bat one
voice. See Mabbry Us. Torger, Hume,
p 9S; Mayor Of Columbia as. Priest, III
Head, p. Al4; Mayor, etc, ts. Althrop,
Y CT, p. 554, etc.
The keeping Of tobacco warehouse
is taxed as q priviIge by the lesis.
letcre, but no other (Code, D. 563.
A. suo section 50, acts 1S7l-1ST5l. And
the fact that the legislature designated
this particular kind of warehouse as
subject to taxation, and no otter, i'm
plies, according to n well known canon
OF construction, that all others we're de-
omitted.
The want OF the requisite power TO
pass this ordinance is, OF course, Of itself
iatat 10, its validity; bat ] would al8o
hold II veld for uncertainty, sven il it |
were Il tie very language OF a legis.
iative act. Il does not limit
the tax TO public warehouses, or such |
as are kept for storage Of cotton, but In
cludes. every "shed, warehouse or other |
place .for the storage Of cotton 3r Other !
oT5ict53," Urd,I this phrsseoiogy it |
would be as competent to levy a tax
upon any private citizen within the city |
limits who had shed or other place in |
which ne kept his family SUPPLIES sc it J
would be rpce q merchant or cotton
actor VINO kept wa. ehouse for the ex-
elusive purpose of storing cotto for pay. |
| must therefore hold the ordinance to |
De wholly void and imperative, and |
discharge the aefendspts.
AS 70 those cases Whsre public ware
lo1ses are kept ss distinct, specific
lranch OF business, rest rye any ex-
of opinion for the present,