Case Name: THE POCOMOKE GUANO COMPANY v. THE CITY OF NEW BERN
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1912-03-13
Citations: 158 N.C. 354
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE POCOMOKE GUANO COMPANY v. THE CITY OF NEW BERN.
Judges: AlleN, J., concurs in dissent.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 354–357

Head Matter:
THE POCOMOKE GUANO COMPANY v. THE CITY OF NEW BERN.
(Filed 13 March, 1912.)
1. Taxation — Fertilizers — inspection — Tonnage Tax — Cities and Towns — License Tax — interpretation of Statutes.
The tonnage tax for purposes of inspection levied by the State under our statute does not forbid- a county, city, or town from levying a license tax upon fertilizer stored therein for purposes of distribution by a manufacturer or dealer, the language of the statute forbidding “any other tax to be levied,” etc., referring to any other tonnage tax.
2. Same — Ordinance.
A city ordinance requiring the payment of a license tax from fertilizer agents or dealers, etc., carrying on their business within the city, is authorized by Revisal, sec. 2934.
3. Same — Storage for Distribution.
A manufacturer of fertilizers maintaining its sales department in another State from which sales are exclusively made for fertilizer stored for distribution only, in a city in this State, is liable under an ordinance of the city levying a tax upon callings and professions, naming among others “fertilizer manufacturers’ agents or dealers,” the tax being for the protection afforded by the city in the exercise of such occupation, and the profits derived therefrom.
Beown, J., dissenting; Allen, J., concurring in dissent,
Appeal by plaintiff from Carter, J., at October Term, 1911, of CRAVEN.
Tlie facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of the Court by Mr. Chief Justice Ciarle.
Moore & Durm for plaintiff.
B. A. Nunn for defendant.

Opinion:
Clare, 0.' J.
This is an action submitted without controversy to determine whether the plaintiff guano company is liable for the license tax of $50 prescribed by the Board of Aldermen of the City of New Bern for carrying on business as fertilizer agents or dealers, fór twelve months succeeding the date of the levy. Eevisal, 2924, authorizes any' municipal corporation to "annually lay a tax on all trades', professions, and franchises carried on or enjoyed within the city, unless otherwise provided by law."
Such license tax upon a trade or profession is not forbidden because a tonnage tax for purposes of inspection has been levied by the State under a statute which forbids "any other tax to be levied by county, city, or town." Thai provision simply forbids any other tonnage tax. It does not forbid an ad valorem, tax upon the goods stored in town, nor a license tax upon the calling or occupation of manufacturing or dealing in fertilizers. Guano Co. v. Tarboro, 126 N. C., 68; Guano Co. v. Biddle, ante, 212.
The power of the Legislature to authorize the levy of license taxes upon trades, professions, and franchises has been discussed and sustained also in Wilmington v. Macks, 86 N. C., 88; S. v. Worth, 116 N. C., 1007; S. v. Irvin, 126 N. C., 989; S. v. Hunt, 129 N. C., 686. The only question that arises, therefore, is whether the occupation or calling exercised by the plaintiff comes within the terms of the ordinance which levies a tax of $50 upon callings and professions, naming among others "fertilizer manufacturers' agents or dealers."
The facts agreed on are that the plaintiff is a company engaged in manufacturing and selling fertilizer and fertilizer material, that it has no factory in New Bern, and that the orders for the goods are received solely -at Norfolk, Ya., and from thence are sent to its agents who maintain a warehouse in the city of- New Bern, where its fertilizers and fertilizing material are stored, and thence are shipped out upon the orders thus sent to them from the general office in Norfolk, Ya., no sales being made in New Bern.
Upon these facts, it is clear that the plaintiff is a manufacturing company maintaining an agency in the city of New Bern, through which it deals in fertilizers and fertilizing material, storing the same and shipping out and distributing the fertilizers and fertilizing material upon receipt of orders which are taken and accepted at Norfolk, Ya. It is not material that no fertilizers are manufactured in New Bern and that no sales are made there. The dealing consists in storing and keeping the goods on hand and shipping them out from time to time to the parties who have bought the same. The tax is upon the occupation or calling or business, whatever it may be termed, from which it is reaping a profit. Like other businesses, professions, and callings that are taxed because carried on there, this plaintiff being protected in the exercise of such occupation or calling by the city, is' subject to this license tax as the pro rata which the city is authorized to levy upon it in return for such protection. Holland v. Isler, 77 N. C., 1.
We concur in the judgment below.
Affirmed.