Citation Numbers: 135 Ky. 24
Judges: Hobson
Filed Date: 10/20/1909
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
Opinion of the Court by
— Affirming.
The license ordinance of the city of Lonisville among other things contains the following:
“Section 1. That hereafter the following licenses shall be paid into the sinking fnnd of the city of Lonisville for the purposes* of the sinking fnnd, for doing the business, following the callings, occupations and professions, or using or holding, or exhibiting the articles hereinafter named in the city of Louisville in addition to the ad valorem taxes heretofore levied cr hereafter to be levied on any species of property in the city of Lonisville.”
“Sec. 66. Every person, firm, or corporation whose business is to take or receive by way of pledge, pawn or exchange any goods, wares or merchandise, or any personal property whatever, as security for the payment of money lent thereon, other than banks or trust companies, shall be deemed a'pawn broker and shall pay a license of three hundred and fifty dollars per year. ’ ’
" “Sec. 72. Every person, firm or corporation who sells pistols at retail shall pay a license of one hundred dollars per year.”
Appellants are pawnbrokers in the city of Louisville, and took out license as such; but they did not take out license to sell pistols at retail. The city was threatening to institute prosecutions against them, and they thereupon brought this suit the purpose of which was to obtain an injunction or prohibition restraining the city from prosecuting them for selling pistols at retail without license. The-circuit court dismissed their petition, and they appeal.
The only question we deem it necessary to consider on the appeal is the validity of section 72, as to pawnbrokers. It is insisted for appellants that as they, have taken out license as pawnbrokers to require them to take out a license to sell pistols at retail will be to tax them twice on their business, and the case of Newport v. Fitzer (Ky.) 115 S. W. 742, is relied on. In that case there was a city ordinance which required the payment of $20 for a license for peddling when carried on with a wagon, and $10 if carried on on foot. There was also another ordinance requiring the payment of $3 by the owner of a vehicle for the right to use it upon the streets. It was held that, as the $20 was paid for the privilege of peddling with a wagon, this necessarily carried with it the right to use the wagon on the streets, as there could be no peddling with a wagon unless the wagon was run on the streets, and that, therefore, it must be presumed that the $3 tax was levied on vehicles not otherwise licensed. That is not this case. The business of a
Judgment affirmed.