Richardson v. Barclay & Brandon
RICHARDSON, tax-collector v. BARCLAY & BRANDON
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Paragraph. 105 under section 2 of'the general tax act of 1921 (Acts 1921, pp. 38, 69) provides for the ievy of occupation taxes as- follows: “ Upon each .person, firm^ or cor- • poration whose business' is that of burying the dead ahd charging fór samé, commonly known as undertakers, iñ cities óf moré than 50.000 inhabitants, per annum, $200.00; in cities of, from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants, per annum, $100.-00; in cities of from 5.000 to 10,000 inhabitants, per annum, $50.00; ih cities or towns of from 2,500 to 5,000, $20.00; in cities or towns of less than 2,500 inhabitants, $10.00.” The above act does not violate article 7, section: 2, paragraph 1, of the constitution (Civil Codé,. § 6553) which provides: “All taxation shall be uniform upon the same *332 class of subjects, and ad valorem on all property subject to be taxed within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws,” nor does it violate article 1, section 1, paragraph 2, of the constitution (Civil Code, § 6358), which provides: Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government, and shall be impartial and complete.” Wright v. Hirsch, 155 Ga. 229 ( 116 S. E. 795 ).
Under the ruling just announced, the trial judge erred in overruling the defendant’s demurrer.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except AtJcinson and Hill, JJ., dissenting.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.