Case Name: GLOBE SECURITY & LOAN CO. v. CARRELL, Auditor
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1922-11-21
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 278
Docket Number: No. 17212
Parties: GLOBE SECURITY & LOAN CO. v. CARRELL, Auditor
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 278–278

Head Matter:
No. 230
GLOBE SECURITY & LOAN CO. v. CARRELL, Auditor
Ohio Supreme Court
No. 17212.
Nov. 21, 1922
This opinion has not been published except in' Abstract.
MUNICIPAL LAW — (1) Power of enacting occupational taxes — (2) 6346-1 and 2 GC. do not restrict the right — (3) Tax imposed by the ordinance not a business prerequisite.
Error to Hamilton County Common Pleas
Attorneys — McCauley & Simmonds, Burton E. Robinson, Buchwalter, Headley & Smith, Ralph Clark and Sandford Brown, for plaintiffs in error; Saul Zielonka, Sol. for the City.

Opinion:
ROBINSON, J.:
Epitomized Opinion
On Aug. 20, 1920, the Council of Cincinnati passed an ordinance to levy an Accupational Tax of $100 upon certain persons, firms or corporations doing business in the city as brokers of various kinds, loaning money upon chattel mortgages, salaries, wages, other than a national or state bank. This act brought to restrain the defendant as city auditor, from collecting the tax. Four other similar cases were brought by different plaintiffs, and all heard and decided together. A demurrer was filed in each case, and on being sustained in the common pleas, error was proshecuted in the Court of Appeals, and the judgments affirmed by it. In affirming them, the Supreme Court held:
1. That the city of Cincinnati has power to enact an occupational tax, and so long as the state, through its General Assembly, does not lay an occupational tax on business, trade, vocations and professions followed in the state, may raise revenue for local • purposes through such taxes. State v. Carrell, 99 O. S. 220.
2. That 6346-1 G. C. requires persons in the businesses aforesaid to obtain a city license, it is a regulatory as distinguished from a revenue measure, and while 6346-2 G. C. restricts the state from exacting further license fees, it in no way restricts it or the municipality from levying an excess tax as a revenue measure.
3. The ordinance in this case does not attempt to make the business unlawful, or to regulate the manner of its operation, or to confer on the person engaged in .it any privilege, but on the contrary, imposes a tax, the payment of which is not a prerequisite to the right to engage in such business, any more than is the payment of any other excess tax such a prerequisite.