TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of New Orleans v. Home Mutual Insurance

City of New Orleans v. Home Mutual Insurance Company

City of New Orleans v. Home Mut. Ins., 23 La. Ann. 449 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1871
Docket
No. 3292
Judges
Ludeling
Citations
23 La. Ann. 449
Headnotes
An ordinance of the city of Now Orleans which fixes the amount of license which each insurance company must pay on the basis of the amount of tbo premium received by each company is unequal and not uniform. It is, therefore, unconstitutional and void. Constitution, art. 118. 'The license imposed-by the municipalities or the State on persons pursuing the same profession, occupation or calling must be equal and uniform; otherwise their payment can not be enforced.
Summary
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court, parish of Orleans."

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ludeling

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ludeling, C. J.

This action was brought to recover two thousand and sixty dollars, the amount of the license tax claimed of defendant, •under an ordinance of the city of New Orleans.

The defendant avers that the ordinance is “unequal, unjust, and ■contrary to the constitution of this State.”

There was judgment in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.

The ordinance provides, that the insurance companies doing business in the city, shall pay a license as follows :

Where the premium received for the year 1869, after deducting reinsurance, return premiums, and internal revenue, shall be one million dollars or over, six thousand dollars ($6000); eight hundred thousand dollars and.under one million dollars, five thousand dollars ($5000); six hundred thousand dollars and under eight hundred thousand dol- ■ lars, four thousand dollars ($4000) ,• four hundred thousand dollars and under six hundred thousand dollars, three thousand dollars ($3000); three hundred thousand dollars and under four hundred thousand dollars, two thousand dollars ($2000); two hundred and *450 fifty thousand, dollars and under three hundred thousand dollars, fifteen hundred dollars ($1500); two hundred thousand dollars and under two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, twelve hundred and fifty dollars ($1250); one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and under two hundred thousand dollars, one thousand dollars ($1000);. under one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750).”

The tax imposed is for a license to carry on a business or occupation. It is the price exacted for tho privilege to pursue a profession,, trade or occupation.

The constitution requires that a license tax as well as a tax on property shall be equal and uniform. To be equal and uniform the tax imposed must be the same upon all who engage in the particular profession or calling' taxed, without reference to the abilities, fortunes or successes of those engaging in business taxed. 10 An. 56, Municipality No. 2 v. Dubois & Mish; 11 An. 739, Police Jury v. Nogues; 20 An. 373, Parish of Orleans v. Cochrane.

The ordinance in question fixes unequal taxes upon persons pursuing the same occupation. Id is therefore unconstitutional and void. Article 118.

It is ordered that tho judgment of the lower court be affirmed with costs of appeal.

Rehearing refused.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1882–1883: 11886–1887: 11896–1897: 11904–1905: 11908–1909: 118822026peak 1882 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte Woods108 S.W. 1171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1908)
  2. Ex Parte Jones43 S.W. 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 1897)
  3. Home Ins. Co. v. State of New York. 1119 U.S. 129 (1886)
  4. State v. Rittenberg36 So. 330 (La. 1904)
  5. In re Watson15 F. 511 (D. Vt. 1882)

Most recent

  1. Ex Parte Woods108 S.W. 1171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1908)
  2. State v. Rittenberg36 So. 330 (La. 1904)
  3. Ex Parte Jones43 S.W. 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 1897)
  4. Home Ins. Co. v. State of New York. 1119 U.S. 129 (1886)
  5. In re Watson15 F. 511 (D. Vt. 1882)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list