Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-01-29
MUST PAY IN CITIES.
LAWYERS LIVING OUT OF TOWN
LIABLE FOR LICENSE.
The SUPREME COURT 50 DEGREES.
This Question, Arising In Peters,
burg, Passed Upon In an interest
other Cases Decided.


other Cases Decided.
The Supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day decided five cases at least two or
which are OF general importance. The
most interesting opinion handed down
perhaps was that by Judge Cardwell in
the case Of the City of Petersburg against
Cooke, in which the question involved
was whether nonresident lawyers should
be assessed for license taxes In the cities
In which they practice. The effect OF the
decision is that such professional men
who reside outside the corporate limits
and do business in the city must pay the
license tax assessed upon the business in
which they are engaged
The case in question was an action
Of assumpsit brought in the Circuit Court
of the city OF Petersburg by the de-
PENDANT I'm error, John J. Cooke TO re-
cover $SO35, the license tax imposed upon
him under an ordinance OF the City Coun-
Gil for the privilege of practicing his pro-
fession as attorney at law In that CITY
from May l, 1880, to April 30 1881, ana LOT
the sum of S2i90 for like privilege lo'
the year ending April 80, 1884. BOth sums
were paid under protest. Issue was MADE
upon non-assumpsit, and the Whoie mat
ter of law and fact was submitted 10 the
decision of the court which decision was
I'm favor of the plaintiff. Judgment was
rendered in his favor for the sums de-
manded WITH interest. To this judgment
the city appealed
COUNCILS POWER TO ASSESS.
Section . of chapter of the charter OF
the city Of Petersburg Is quoted from a.
follows: For the execution OF its powers
and duties the Common Councl may Iais
annually, by taxes and assessIhen's, - -,
said city. such sums Of money as theS
NAV deem necessary to deirdy the ~
penses of the game, and i'm such mailIei
as they may deem necessary, III iOe.
ance with the laws of the state anu N
United States. &C." a provision ldentl-
cal with the above is contained In lne
charter of the city of Richmond, ana III
the case of Ould d Darlington VS.; the clls
Of Richmond, supra, this court heiu ma
tax imposed and collected ulder an u in
d,rance of the Common Councl, maze III
pursuance of said section OF the CITY
charter from Ould q Darlington, resi-
dents of the city. having their law oince
and place of business therein was NOT an
encroachment upon the cOnsututlohal
rights of citizens: that such tax was
authorized by the charter OF the CITY, anu
therefore valid. The Supreme court, III
its very able opinion. says. .no
1--WE are of opinion, therefore, that IN
attorney having his ofhce ana piace VI
business i'm the city and pracucing ms
profession therein, although ne may r.
side outside Of the cltys limit. Is as IiiuciI
liable to the tax imposed by the CITY upon
attorneys at law as the attorney residing
within the city. and that the tax I'M
nosed in the one case is no more an en-
rroachment upon the constitutional rights
of the citizen than it is in the other.
ESSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL TAN
ALTON.
"Justice and equality are of the essence
Of constitutional taxation, ana as the4S
is no suggestion that the taxes linpoScn
upon and collected from the plalntlit, uh-
der the ordinance Of the city OF Peters
burg. have been unfairly or impaItalis
imposed. no good reason has been or can
be given, we think, why the pidliltili
should not be required 10 pay thS SAN a.
Ii Is not contrOverted That he mas NE
office. his regular place OF business, III
the CITY to which he comes daily, as w
the resident attorneys TO thelr oiIlce, 10
the transaction of his business as an AZ
torney He enjoys equally WIN tH inl. IN IN
advantages Of carrying on his business III
the practice of his profession III lnlSh-
ly-populated city. which offers many III
ducements, as well as adNahtases, DONi'
i'm increased business facilltles ana SVni
forts not attainable in the county OF Ils
residence. He enjoys habitually ana daliy,
equally with the resident attorneys, lhS
use Of the city's improved streets an
lights, and is equally protected ny ~
malice regulations in his person ana pro
perty. lie has, as they have. the DeneHl
Of the night watch 10 protect his once
and his property therein; the beneht Oi
the fire department in case OF ilre, ~
and should contribute reasonably TO the
these
and facilities. as this is authorized anu
imposed upon the resident attorneys
The remainder of the opinion is devoted
TO q discussion of the contention OF coun-
sci for the defendant that the fetersOutB
ordinance does not embrace noh-resl-
dents" but the court does not admit the
force of this contention.
THE NUNNALLY-STRAUS CASE
Another case of some moment decided
was that of Nunnally and others against
Straus and others This case was mosl
extensively treated ty JudGe haiilSG .
who rendered the opinion. me case III
wolves the affairs OF the loTk Steei
and Iron Company. which was CHARTERED
here with a capital stock 10 pe nV ITO, -
than 100000 nor more than $lVv,WV, anu
seven citizens Of Richmond constituted Us
charter members. The bill in the case
Was filed on behalf Of the appellants anu anu
all other creditors of the YORK steer dnu
Iron Company. The plaintiffs endeaVOren
N q (fnInFtlN
ment of their claims against the company
and 10 compel the subscribers Tor STOCK 10
nav The balance due. The court sustained
a demurrer to the bill. -,
Judge Harrison's opinion oVerruies the
demurrer and orders a new tllal' Juuses
Buchanan and Keith dissent.
THE DISSENTING OPINION.
Ia tbIs case bowever. q dissenting opin-
ion was delivered by Judge Buchanan, ana
concurred in by Judge James keith pre-
dent of the court. Judge BuchaHdn So -
Il am unable to concur III the OPINION Vi
the court 1t seems to me that thls case
can be distinguished from rinney vs..
Bennett. In that case the Defendant coI
noration was not only insolVent, Out us
assets were in such condition thaI re-
ceiyer was necessary to take chaIbS Vi
them TO protect the creditors from loss
Ia tbis case no such necessity is shown
and no receiver is asked for. In thdt case
the creditors were very numerous anu . a.. a
multiplicity of suits was aNolded. IN TN.
case while the bill is nled on penall Ol
Inc nlointiffs and other creditors VINO VIII
contribute to the costs OF the SUIT. thele
is no ALLEGATION that there are any otivl
creditors or that the defendant company
oVves any other debt than the one sued
60 ,rbc grounds stated in the bill for
eouitable relief are not suiiicient, IN my
Judgment. TO bring this case Wlthin any
Of the exceptions TO the general RUE Ihat
a creditor cannot file bill IN equity 10
subject the assets of an insolNent corpo-
ration 10 the payment OF his dept uhul
10 hos exhausted his remedy at law
THE MINOR CASES.
Tho case of Robertson against Smith
was a suit involving the sale or lorls-
tvvo acres of land for the price OF A,s10
The purchaser to assume mortgage OF
sio 900 A tract 10 have been released
was afterward sold to James MOTHERHOOD
mon the representation that the appellant
ia agreed 10 have the mortgage lien
mon The tract in question released. There
Vas a great deal Of litigation, and the
Cont of Appeals holds that the deed
executed to the appellant by the COM