Case Name: STATE v. MILAM GRAIN & MILLING CO., Inc.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1933-01-03
Citations: 146 So. 47
Docket Number: No. 32045
Parties: STATE v. MILAM GRAIN & MILLING CO., Inc.
Judges: O’NIELL, C. J., dissents and hands down reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter
Volume: 146
Pages: 47–49

Head Matter:
176 La. 539
STATE v. MILAM GRAIN & MILLING CO., Inc.
No. 32045.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 3, 1933.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1933.
Harry P. Sneed and Wm. J, Kearney, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellant.
Charles J. Rivet, of New Orleans, for the State.

Opinion:
BRTJNOT, J.
This appeal is from a judgment on a rule condemning the defendant to pay a retail license to the state for the years 1930, 1931, and 1932, with interest and attorney's fees. The sum of the judgment is $540 with 2 per cent, per month on $180 from March 1, 1930, until paid, like interest on $180 from March 1, 1931, until paid, like interest on $180 from March 1, 1932, until paid, and 10 per cent, of the sum of the principal and interest as attorney's fees.
The facts are admitted. Defendant sells its merchandise in unbroken packages only, to all purchasers, without inquiry as to whether' the purchaser is a dealer or consumer. Its defense is that it does not break the original packages and, therefore, it is not a retailer. It alleges that it has paid the required wholesale license for the years 1930, 1931, and 1932; that its retail business is conducted at locations other than its manufacturing site; and that each of its retail establishments has paid a retail license for said years. The question presented is whether or not a wholesaler who sells in unbroken packages to consumers, as well as to dealers for resale, is subject to a retail license.
Section 7 of Act No. 205 of 1924, as amended by Act No. 132 of 1928, defines a "wholesaler" as,follows:. .
"Provided, that no person or persons shall be deemed wholesale dealers unless he or they sell by: the p'riginal or unbroken package or barrel only; and provided, further, that no person or persons shall he deemed' wholesale dealers \Cn%ess'-h&'or they sell to dealers for 're-sale! -If they Sell'in 'less quantities than originar Unbroken package or barrel, they fehállvbé 'Considered retail dealers and pay license as such." (Italics-by the court.)
Counsel for appellant contends that license taws'are-Strictly construed. They cannot be extended''by- construction, and omissions cannot'be''supplied by courts. This rule Was ibcognjzed and properly adhéred to in State v. Norman Mayer & Co., 170 La. 237, 127 So. 743. In that case it was found that the vocation sought to be taxed was not included in any provision of the license laws o-f the state. That, is not.trqe. of this case. In our opin-ión, the' provision of section 7 of the license act of 1924,' quoted supra, admits of but one interpretation, viz., that a wholesaler who sells in.unbroken packages direct to consumers, or one who sells in broken packages to dealers, for resale, is subject to the payment of a retail license. There is nothing in this repord to indicate the volume of retail business 'done by the appellant, but the sum of the license claimed is set forth in a properly attested/rule, and, therefore, the burden was upon the appellant to show that fact. Having omitted to do so, we have no alternative and must affirm the judgment appealed from.
For the reason assigned, the judgment is affirmed, at appellant's cost.
O'NIELL, C. J., dissents and hands down reasons.