Case Name: Witham v. Stewart, tax-collector
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1907-08-10
Citations: 129 Ga. 48
Docket Number: 
Parties: Witham v. Stewart, tax-collector.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 48–49

Head Matter:
Witham v. Stewart, tax-collector.
Argued November 19, 1906.
Decided August 10, 1907.
Petition for injunction. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. July 2, 1906.

Opinion:
Beck, J.
1. .Section 2, par. 2, of the act of the General Assembly, approved December 16th, 1902 (A. '02, p. 19), provides that a "specific-tax" of $10, for each of the fiscal years 1903 and 1904, shall be levied "upon the presidents of each of the express, telegraph, steamboat, railroad, street-railroad, telephone, electric-light, sleeping and palace-car companies, banks, building and loan associations, and gas companies doing business in this State." Held, that under the provisions of said act, where it appears that the same person is the president of two or more banks, a tax of $10 may he collected from such person for each bank of which he is president. It appearing in the present case that the plaintiff in error was the president of several banks doing business in this State, he was liable to be taxed in the amount specified in the above act for each bank of which he was the president.
2. The tax in question is not repugnant to par. 1, sec. 2, art. 7 of the constitution of this State; nor is such tax obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution, as denying to any person "the equal protection of the laws." Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 97 Ga. 114, 35 L. R. A. 497, 25 S. E. 249.
3. It appearing that the president of the banks, from whom the taxes were sought to be collected, was a resident of Fulton county, it was proper for the tax-collector of that county to collect the amount. due by the said president as taxes under ' the provisions of the act above referred to; and the court did not err in refusing to enjoin the collection of the same.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
Cited by counsel: Ga. R. 8/23; 9/253; 13/309; 14/438; 16/102; 21/59; 27/357; 33/623; 34/310; 35/124; 36/460; 40/201; 42/424, 596; 45/85; 49/195; 50/530; 51/252; 52/257; 53/44, 588; 54/330; 59/535, 806; 60/99, 137, 597; 62/645; 64/128, 789; 69/583, 686; 76/263; 82/138; 84/685; 87/400; 89/642; 97/116; 101/293; 105/567; 109/63, 77, 90, 103; 113/595; 114/397; 118/59; 121/412. Cooley on Tax. (2d ed.) 571, 586, (3d ed.) 5, 28, 29, 573, 586, 595, 1147, 1412, 1415; Cooley's Con. Lim. 201, 479, 609; 2 Story, 359; 3 Hun, 84; 45 Am. D. 593; 52 Am. D. 331; 20 Am. E. 654; 21 Am. R. 765; 4 Wheat. 430; 9 Wall. 353; 18 Wall. 5, 10, 36, 37; 8 Wall. 538; 16 Wis. 136; 15 Kan. 627; 62 Pa. St. 491; 39 Ind. 429; 13 Gratt. 767; 16 Cal. 119 ; 139 U. S. 591; 46 Fed. 221; 65 Fed. 856; 70 Fed. 1; Dill. Mnn. Cor. §367.
Ellis, Wimbish & Ellis, for plaintiff.
John G. Hart, attorney-general, and PL. M. Patty, for defendant.