Court Opinion

ID: 9601139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:37:17.698758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:55.592535
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(dissenting) :
*101I dissent. The last paragraph of the main opinion seems to me to be somewhat inconsistent with the rest of the decision.
To sustain this double tax, which I think need not be justified under the statute, is to discourage anyone who might have a desire to engage in business in Utah.
The quotation from an Ohio case,1 that “It is a well-established doctrine that every public statute has or is supposed to have as its objective some purpose or policy whereby the public welfare is served” may be a delightful bit of philosophy, but hardly an authority to justify a tax upon a tax.

. 42 Ohio St. 616, 53 N.E.2d 812 (1944).