Court Opinion

ID: 9824627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:01:24.566931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:20.753595
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee now insists that the money paid for the benefit of Fireman’s Pension and Relief Fund should not be recovered by appellant.
With reference to this tax of 1% per cent., this court in Cobbs, City Treasurer, v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 18 Ala. App. 206, 91 So. 627, 629, and reaffirmed in the case of Home Ins. Company v. Cobbs, 20 Ala.App. 491, 103 So. 165, had this to say: “The tax or license levied by the act of 1915 (page 898 et seq.) as amended 'by the act of 1919 (pages 111— 116) is a tax levied by the Legislature for the benefit of the various municipalities falling within the class to which they belong and is just as if the Legislature had authorized the levy of the license and an ordinance had been passed carrying it into effect, and so long as the levy does not exceed, by municipal ordinance or direct levy for the use of the municipality by the Legislature, the amount fixed' by the Gen. Rev.Act 1919 (Laws 1919, p. 414) Schedule 59, subd. b, there is no conflict in the two statutes, requiring the striking down of the one or the other.”
By whatever name the 1% per cent, tax on insurance companies, for the benefit of Fireman’s Pension and Relief Fund, may be called, it is none the less a license tax within the meaning of the law.
It is, therefore, clear to us that it is immaterial whether the tax for the Fireman’s Pension and Relief Fund is a direct enactment by the Legislature or whether the Legislature merely permits the town to levy such a tax. By express provisions of the 1935 Act of the Legislature, p. 852 et seq., the tax for the benefit of the Fireman’s Pension and Relief Fund is held to- be treated as a part of the tax levied by a municipal corporation, and which is permitted by the General Revenue Act of 1935, p. 552 et seq.
It is also now contended by the appellee that section 2156 of the Code is not, in reality, a part of the Code, for the reason that it was not enacted and approved until October 1, 1923, Acts 1923, p. 748, whereas the act adopting the Code was approved August 17, 1923, Acts 1923, p. 127.
Counsel, however, failed to give effect to that part of the act, supra, which provides as follows: “All Acts of the present session of the Legislature, passed on and after July 10th., 1923, which are of a general nature, shall be incorporated in the Code at the appropriate place with reference to its subject-matter, and become and be published as a part of the Code, so that every statute of a general nature of this State, in force at the time of the publication of the Code, shall be incorporated therein.” Section 4.
Whether, therefore, section 2156 of the Code originated in the Code Committee, or whether it was a codification of that part of the act approved October 1, 1923, is of no moment. The section is still a law. In re Fite, 228 Ala. 4, 152 So. 246.
In addition to the foregoing, this section (2156) is brought forward and contained in the General Revenue Act of 1935, § 348, schedule 160.17. See General Acts of Alabama, 1935, p. 555.
We see no escape from the conclusion which we reached in the original opinion promulgated in this case. All 'Of the statutes relative to the licensing of fire insurance companies by municipalities are general, and must be considered in pari materia, and, .whe'n so considered, the plain terms of the statute1 prohibit all *147municipalities in the state from levying and collecting license on this appellant.
The application for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.