The Brookhaven leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1883-1891, 1886-02-25
LICENSE AND INSURANCE.
An Important Decision of the su-
preme Court Affecting Mer-
chants and Their
Debtors.


VS.. Pollard Il Co, the Mississippi
Supreme Court rendered one OF the
most important discisions it has
enunciated for years. Twelve at
torneys made speeches, as by agree
ment, it was made a test case, for
about thirty others of similar ma
ture. Pollard & Co., were mer,
chants and their stock, which was
insured, was burned. The insur'
ance company claimed that the firm
did not pay a privilege on as large
an amount as they were insured for,
and as section $50, of the Code OF
1880, provides that all contracts
made with any person who shall
violate said act, ain reference
TO the business carried on in disre-
gard of the law, shall be null and
void, and no suit shall
be maintainable in favor Of such
person ON any such contract" re-
fused to pay the insurance pre-
MUM.
The opinion of the Court was de-
livered by Judge Campbell, the fol-
lowing being a full text /:
We are called upon to determine
whether one exercising the privilege
of keeping a store, without paying
the price and obtaining license as
prescribed by law, and affecting in
surance of the stock of goods so en-
ployed can recover on the policy in
case of this loss. An answer to
this question requires an interpreta-
ton of $3.50 of the Code which de-
clares that any person who shall ex-
ercise any of the privileges enumer-
ated, "without first paying the price
and procuring license as required
shall on conviction be fined
or imprisoned or by both,
+ and all contracts made
with any person, who shall violate
this act, in reference to the business
carried on in disregard of this law,
shall be null and void, so far only as
such person may base any claim
upon them, and no suit shall be
maintainable in favor of such person
on any such contract"
The purpose of the act is mani
fest. 1t is to constrain those who
would enjoy the privileges taxed to
pay the price and obtain license by
a two-told penalty, one being fine or
Imprisonment or both, and the other
disability to claim under any con
tract made in reference to the bust
ness carried on in disregard of law;
one to he enforced through the ma
chinery provided for the punishment
OF misdemeanors, and the other, on
the plea Of party sought to he held
liable on the contracts male in RET
ercnce TO the business.
We repudiate the distinction at
tempted to be maintained between
not obtaining license at all, and OBJ
tanning an insufficient one. The
statute pronounces its penalty
against him who fails to pay the
price and obtains license, and he
who pays the price OF a business
less than that prescribed and car
ries on business greater than he
has said Tor the privilege Of conduct
ing is as much within the contem-
plation of the statute as he who
pays no tax. 1t may be said that
differentiation is the form in which
the chief frauds are committed on
the revenue. He who pays no tax
is almost sure to attract attention to
his default, and to be visited by the
penalty of the law, while successful
fraud may be practiced by paying a
small tax, and under color of the Ii
cense thus obtained transacting
business on q scale much larger
than that authorized by the license
purchased. AS the statute is broad
enough to include it, and the case OF
one who pays a small tax and does q
large business, is a common form of
the evil sought to be remedied by
the penalty prescribed, it must be
assumed that the legislative purpose
was to embrace it.
The statute does not deprive the
owner of his property embarked in
the business illegally carried on
The title is not in any manner at
fected. All the incidents of title re-
main with the rights Of the owner,
in all respects, as to the property,
except that no contract made in ref
erence to the business not dull IL
censed, can be enforced by him who
has violated the law in carrying on
the business. The owner may re-
sort t" the courts, and maintain any
action to the maintenance OF which
title TO the property entities him,
unaffected by the fact that the pro-
perry is employed in business UNI
lawfully carried, because the disa-
bility imposed by the statute ex-
tends only to rights founded on con-
tracts made in reference 10 the bust
ness. The distinction is between
title with its incidents, and power
to contract with respect to the sub
ject of it. Not the title of the de
linauent owner is impaired, but his
capacitv to make q contract he can