Case Name: Corporation of Vermilionville vs. C. H. Mouton
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1876-06
Citations: 28 La. Ann. 586
Docket Number: No. 872
Parties: Corporation of Vermilionville vs. C. H. Mouton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
No. 872.
Corporation of Vermilionville vs. C. H. Mouton.
The defendant, an attorney at law, refuses to pay a license tax of ton dollars, imposed by tlxe corporation of the town of Vermilionville on each attorney at law practicing; his profession within the limits of the corporation.
Corporate bodies can exercise only the powers granted to them. In referring to the legislative act incorporating the town of Vermilionville it is impossible to find any power, express or implied, granted to the corporation to impose a license tax of any kind. Therefore the judgment rendered against the defendant was erroneous.
APPEAL from the Third Justice Court, parish of Lafayette. Bayley, Justice.
E. E. Mouton, for plaintiff and appellee.
TF. C. Croio and C. Debaillon, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Taliavbrro, J.
The corporation of the town of Vermilionville im-X^osed a license tax of ten dollars for the year 1874 on each attorney at law practicing his profession within the limits of the corporation. The defendant, an attorney at law, refused to pay this license tax, and suit was brought against him by the corporation before a justice of the peace to compel payment, and judgment was rendered in favor of the corporation, and the defendant has appealed.
Corporate bodies can exercise only the powers granted to them. In referring to the legislative act incorporating the town of Yermilionville we were unable to find any power, express or implied, granted to the corporation to impose a license tax of any kind. The judgment rendered by the magistrate's court we therefore conclude was erroneously rendered.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be annulled • and reversed. It is further ordered that there be judgment in favor of defendant, the plaintiff paying costs in both courts.