Court Opinion

ID: 9581793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:18:51.038894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:15.234353
License: Public Domain

Duckworth, Chief Justice,
concurring specially. The peti*302tioner has standing to make the constitutional attack in count 1. The statute places upon it a duty to collect and remit the tax, and makes it liable for the tax if it fails to collect. All of this burden and liability is imposed by the law which is assailed as being unconstitutional. We therefore should rule on the constitutional question. But when it is observed that the caption of the Act provides for making definitions of terms in the body of the Act, it thereby authorizes the portion of the Act under attack which is simply defining the meaning of the transaction therein referred to. I would hold that the Act is constitutional as against the attack made, and for this reason, rather than that given in the majority opinion, count 1 was subject to the general demurrer.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance. I am authorized to state that Mr. Presiding Justice Candler concurs in this special concurrence.