Court Opinion

ID: 9807421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:03:27.981597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:36:13.354214
License: Public Domain

WaliceR, J.,
concurring in result: The defect in the special verdict will justify the decision of the Court, but I do not concur in the reason given for it, that by the statute the defendant was not taxable.
The purpose of the Legislature in enacting Public Laws of 1919, ch. 90, sec. 72, was to protect all agents of those manufacturers of automobiles, who had applied for and received a license to sell them in the-State, but it was not intended that his license should extend to those engaged in such business of selling automobiles on their own account and independently of the manufacturer. Such persons are not selling-under him or connected with him in any way, but, on the contrary, they are selling in opposition to him, and are his competitors and rivals in business. It was therefore provided that, where any person or corporation engaged independently in the business of selling automobiles for-which privilege the manufacturer of the automobiles has not paid the-license tax, he shall pay to the State Treasurer a tax of $500, and himself obtain a license for conducting such business. It was clearly in*715tended that no one stall sell under tbe manufacturer’s license unless he-is bis agent. Tbe State Treasurer is authorized to issue a certified duplicate only to tbe “agent or representative” of tbe manufacturer, “wbicb shall give him tbe privilege of doing business ds the agent of tbe licensee.” But not so with tbe second proposition, for if tbe manufacturer has not paid tbe license fee where one, not bis agent, is about to engage in tbe business of selling bis automobiles, or those of any other manufacturer, tbe person so proposing to engage in such business-shall pay it. If this is not true, then two persons, not connected in business, can sell tbe same kind of automobiles under one license, even though they be competitors or rivals in business. Surely tbe Legislature-did not contemplate this result. Tbe independent seller may, under such a construction, and under certain circumstances, enjoy a’more valuable privilege than tbe manufacturer, and pay nothing for it. My conclusion is that tbe business of tbe independent dealer is taxed, if not expressly, then by tbe clearest and most manifest implication, wbicb is sufficient.' Tbe defendant offered to pay tbe tax, but tbe manufacturer-protested against its being received, and tbe State officer desisted. The-ground of tbe manufacturer’s opposition was, though be may not have-stated it, that it would bring tbe defendant into competition with him and destroy bis monopoly, now grown, as we all know, to enormous-proportions.
Tbe special act of 1920 is of no significance, except as showing that, in tbe opinion of tbe Legislature, such a business as that of a dealer in second-hand machines should be subject to tbe privilege tax, but that tbe amount of $500 was too much, under tbe circumstances, as tbe business, from its nature, is somewhat localized, though it may spread out.. Tbe rule as to legislative construction does not apply here, as this was not a construction at all, but a change of tbe law (Stockdale v. Ins. Co., 20 Wallace (U. S.), 331; Koshkoning v. Burton, 104 U. S., 668), and tbe construction was not of long duration and settled on, but of recent date. Attorney-General v. Bank, 21 N. C., 216; Attorney-General v. Bank, 40 N. C., 71. Tbe larger tax was intended for those who dealt through agents, and covered a wide territory. Tbe general license protected each agent by tbe payment of a small additional tax taken out in bis name by tbe principal, but tbe State license of tbe latter did not protect third parties, who were not selling for him. Tbe manufacturer,, therefore, bad not taken out a license wbicb protected tbe defendant’s, business, within tbe meaning of tbe words of tbe statute. It would be-singular if tbe Legislature intended to leave so large and well known a business untaxed, or exempt from tbe privilege tax.