Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1883-01-15
THE aes sRocER.
important supreme Court De.
cisiov, touching the Rights Of
Th,s Glass Of Merchants.

The following opinion, touching the
rights and privileges OF the green gro
Ger was delivered by Judge Cooper ia
the Supreme Court Saturday, and will,
doubtless. prove Of interest, to the
tnsny readers Of the LEDGER, and
more particularly to this class Of mer-
chants:
Under the act Of 1881, Gu. 149, sec.
4, which puts a privilege tax Of $50 on
butcher, including old Offices aud
store for the sale Of meat at retail, in
all towns and cities Of over one thou
sand inhabitants the keepers of fam
ily grocery under a merchants license,
who sells neat at retailin such a town
or city must pay the privilege tax,
although be may retail meat for only
a small part OF the year. and limit the
business to a particular class of meats
purchased from farmers.
Q Il. Eastman, clerk, VS.. Jackson &
Scott-Ac,ion brought by jackson 4
Scott under act of 1875, against East
man, clerk, to recover money alleged
to have been Improperly collected by
him as a license tax. The Circuit
Judge rendered judgment in favor Of
plaintiffs aud the clerk appealed. The
license tax was collected by a distress
warrant issued under the revenue act
of 1881. This act fixes the rate OF
taxation ia privileges, and among
other persons charged with a privilege
tax enumeratcs butchers, including
all offices and stores for the sale OF
meat at retail in all towns aud cities Of
1900 inhabitants, thirty dollars. The
defendants in error were grocery men.
chants doing business on Cherry
street, Nashville. They kept a family
grocery. sold provisions, vegetables,
bacon, lard, etc. During two months
Of the winter season they had been ia
the habit Of purchasing from farmers
other produce. backbones, sparerib:
and sausage. They handled, perhaps.
three hundred pounds during the
season, which they sold to their
regular customers, without cut
ting them or ia any way separating
the pieces, and all the meat handled
by them was hog meat. A butcher is
a person who kills animals to sell then
flesh. 1t is very certain that the de
PENDANTS in error do not come within
this class, and the only question is
whether they are persons who have
an Office or store for the sale OF meat
at retail, within the meaning Of the
act, Nashville being a city of ovel
1000 inhabitants, for it is certain thai
the Legislature intended that some
persons having Offices and stores fol
the sale Of meat at retail should pay
the tax equally with the butchers. l
could rot be that the only proprieto.
OF such an Office or store Ehe wa
taxable must be a butcher, for tn
butcher is already taxed as sucl
which would entitle him to an ofhe.
or store to sell wholesale OF retail
and it could scarcely have been in
tended to coabie tax him, once 3
q butcher and again ioT his O1e= G
store. If : person Who Vas not
butcher had a stols O. o5es tx Il
sale Of meat 81 retail s1tl1EFsy. ]
would probably ts es-sala1 lhr1 l
was liable to the tai. 11as ars "a.
that be unitss this u-N5s Ellh mhs
retail business IL TIE Mua UhBs G
store change tie FaEl-ff BIZ =
have held that the LHgsK11rs Ia
classify merchants i1r y-rposss
taxation, and tax each class. paying
taxi as such, add 70 occupation al
other. though kindred business, Ehic
is additional lax, (Ielley rs. DIVER.
Lea, l80). Neat dealers may
graded into classes for taxation
Vase vs.. Memphis, 8 Lea, &I
The question is therefore narroWe
down to the point, whether the exteI
Of the additional business, either in Il
time in which, during the year it
carried on, or the question of trad
can change the THiings And We CT
see no way in which we can take Il
business out Of the puryiew of Il
statute upon these grounds. II Il
store or Office be for the sale of me
at retail, it falls within the law. III
Judgment must therefore be reverse
the judgment entered in this court
favor Of the plaintiff in error.