The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-01-18

AS. John /. 1rby ct ais, appealed from
Circiiit Court Of Henrico.
The list of cases found outlined below
contains many matters OF interest. both
TO the legal profession and the general
public.
LICENSE TAN INVALID.
Postal Telegraph Cable Company VS..
city of Richmond. From Hastings Court
of city OF Richmond. Opinion by Judge
Keith. p
This case came up on a writ of error
10 The Judgment of the Hastings Court OF
Richmond, Imposing n fine Of $40 upon the
Postal Telegraph Cable Company for prose
cutting its business as telegraph company
Tn the city OF Richmond without having
first paid a specific license tax of S2o0. as
scSsed against il the first day of fTcioru-
AIRY, 1898, and ending on January 81, 1899,
in accordance with ordinance of this
city (scc. 10. chap. IS of the City Codel
imposing s. upon each telegraph pole To-
Gated in said city, and Il. license tax OF
$500 per annnm.
This case was tried upon an agreed state
OF facts, and the only material errors as
signed relate to the Instructions given and
refused by the Hastings Court, The in
st--uctioIl asked for by the city and given
IL the court, states that il the license
tax assessed against the telegraph COM
7rary- was in lieu of the taxes which might
have been levied directly s>~on its proper
ty located in the CITY of Richmond, and if
they further believe that said company
prosecuted its business after the first day
OF May TO the end of the fiscal year. with
out having paid said tax, then they should
find the company guilty.
The instruct:on asked for by the plain
tiff in error Cthe company tells the jury
that a license tax so imposed is unconsti-
sutional and void unless they believe from
the evidence that the license tax so i'm
posed is in lieu of all other taxes i'm
posed by the city OF Richmond upon said
company and not more than the sum
which the defendant company would have
had to pay if its property had been sub
iected 10 the ordinary ad valorem proper
~ tax provided for i'll the statutes of Sl.4o
on: the 500 worth.
The court held that the position taken
IN the instruction asked for by the city
would, il sound, render OF non effect the
principle set out in the 1s7 L. S. Gao; 15S
L. S. 62a, and other cases. for if the
vice In the law which imposes license
may be cured by the recital that it IS in
lieu Of all other taxes without regard 10
the proposition which the amount levied
as a license tax bears To that which would
be paid as an ad valorem tax upon
property, II IS obvious that all limitation
upon the power OF the city is destroyed.
The rule is that a city cannot levy
license tax upon interstate commerce or
upon any of the agencies necessary to the
transaction of interstate commerce; the
exception Is. and most reasonable one,
that license may be levied upon the
property of one OF the agencies, provided
always the license tax he not in excess
OF that to which the property of said
agency within the city would be subject
under ordinary modes of taxation. l5o u.
s.. GSS.
In the case at bar the license tax inn
posed is 500 per annum. while the tax
levied ad raloren would by the uncon-
iratficted evidence amount TO less than
$40 Per anrum.
The payment of this license tax was
made Il condition precedent to the right
10 transact business, and in this respect
also the ordinance under consideration
WAS held invalid
The city relied upon the decision in the
case of Western Union Telegraph Com
pany rs. City of Richmond, &c Graft. J..
which was decided IN 1870 but which is
in conflict With the recent decisions OF
the United States Supreme Court, which
are binding upon appellate courts OF the
States in all causes arising under the
constitution and laws of the United
States. Judgment OF the Hastings Court
Is reversed.
RIGHTS OF y DEPoSITOR-
w o. Noting vs.. The aNtional Bank of
Virginia. from the chancery Court of
the City of Richmond.
Opinion by Judge Phlesar-
Under a contract dated January !. 1882,
IL was agreed between Noting and Doins
& Gregory Ia partnership that he should
act as their cashier III the business of
buying and selling tobacco. and should
f.,,-- tat.,
receive all proceeds of sales, make de-
posts. sign all checks and have full
supervision an dcontrol of collections. etc.
For the purpose OF securing to Noting
funds he might advance and in considera-
ton of what he was TO do, all of the
proceeds OF sales. all notes Of buyers
etc. We're assigned 10 him. with a COW
enant that all money from such sales and
bills should he paid over 10 him. and
that from such moneys he should first re-
in1bursc himself and pay the residue TO |
The Davis Il Gregory Company Accord |
insiy Noting opened an account With |
The appellee in the name OF .'W o. |
ss.0ao0o. which he advanced. AT tn. time |
he opened the account he notified the |
cashier OF the bank that no one was TO |
check on that account except himself.
On April u. 1892. the hank paid $500. 90 |
on a check for Sle.o0 which Noting had |
drawn. aad winch iao Desl lrasGGentlE
raised to $4,000 Noting refused to receg-
nizc this check for more than slaVa; the |
hank refused 10 lessen the charge it had |
made and he sued il for the Si9D.na. On |
the trial Noting & Davis testified that |
the suit WAS for the benefit OF the firm |
and that II would be entitled to secover.
In the present suit he explained that he
understood the firm would be liable to |
him for the $4,000. if 1t was not recovered |
from the bank. and therefore he consid- /
erred the suit was really for their benefit.
AT the time the raised check WIS paid no
0ea9 money had been deposited to the