Court Opinion

ID: 9825523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:17:52.355456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:56.759675
License: Public Domain

Upon Rehearing.
It is earnestly urged upon rehearing that the appellee was not liable for this tax •because it did not come within the influence of the statute and ordinance; that, while it may have done business within the city of •Dothan, it did not do a public utility business within said city. In other words, it does not deny doing business in said city as held by the court, but claims it did not do a ■public utility business, merely furnished the •electric power to the city, which said city, 'and not the appellee, became the public utility.
Whatever may be the holding in other jurisdictions, we feel that our opinion has tracked our statute and that the result is a literal compliance therewith. The statute provides: “The maximum amount of privilege or license taxes which the several municipalities within the State may annually. assess ánd collect of persons, firms or corporations operating electric public utilities for business transacted in such municipalities, respectively, whether such companies are incorporated under the laws of this State, or of any other State, or whether incorporated at all or not, shall not exceed 2 per cent of the gross receipts of said utilities for the preceding year.”
That the appellee is a corporation “operating electric public utilities” is undisputed, and that it transacted business within the municipality is beyond question, and the statute necessarily applies, and we are unable •to assent to the contention that it must have served the publje generally and directly instead of the city as its sole customer in order to fall within the influence of the statute.
It is also urged that, as the city contracted with the appellee to furnish it with electricity for sale and distribution, it had no authority to impose the tax in question, and reliance is had on the case of Stein v. Mayor, etc., of Mobile, 49 Ala. 362, 20 Am. Rep. 283. It is sufficient to say that this case was explained and qualified by the case of Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham v. Birmingham Water Works Co., 139 Ala. 531, 36 So. 614, 101 Am. St. Rep. 49. Here, there was no contract relinquishing the city’s right to tax the appellee. Moreover, it is well settled that such an agreement would be invalid in the absence of express statutory authority to do so. Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham v. Birmingham Water Works Co., supra; Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. City of Seattle, 54 S. Ct. 542, 78 L. Ed. 1025, and many cases there cited.
Rehearing denied.
THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.