City of Redding v. Dozier
Before: Finch
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
FINCH, P. J.
Plaintiff was given judgment for ten dollars alleged to be due as a license tax imposed under an ordi
[591]
nance adopted by plaintiff city. The principal question raised is whether the city has authority to impose the tax.
[1]
'The defendant is a physician and surgeon residing and practicing in the city of Redding and having his office at his place of residence. Redding is a city of the sixth class, incorporated as such in 1887 under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1883 (Stats. 1883, p. 93).
The ordinance is entitled, “An ordinance to license various classes of business, shows, exhibitions and games within the City of Redding for the purpose of revenue and regulation, and fixing the rates of license tax upon the same and providing for the collection of the same by suit or otherwise.” Section 1 provides: “Every person, firm, association, co-partnership or corporation, who has a fixed place of business, and engages in, carries on, or conducts any business, exhibitions or games, described in this ordinance, within the City of Redding, shall pay a license therefor in the amount hereinafter specified. ...” Section 2 provides: “Licenses to be paid as provided in the preceding section and the persons who shall be required to pay the same and the business upon which the same is to be paid respectively are the following, to wit: ... 29. Lawyers, doctors and dentists, $5 per quarter.”
Since the question raised seems to have been definitely settled in this state, it is deemed sufficient to call attention to the statutes and decisions on the subject. The ordinance in question was adopted March 1, 1920.
Section 862, subdivision 10, of the Municipal Corporations Act, as originally enacted, empowered the trustees of cities of the sixth class, “to license, for purposes of regulation and revenue, all and every kind of business authorized by law and transacted or carried on in such city or town; ... to fix the rates of license tax upon the same, and to provide for the collection of the same by suit or otherwise.”
In 1901 (Stats. 1901, p. 635) section 3366 of the Political Code was adopted, providing as follows: “Boards of Supervisors of the counties of the state, and the legislative bodies of the incorporated cities and towns therein, shall, in the exercise of their police powers, and for the purpose of regulation, as herein provided, and not otherwise, have power to license all and every kind of business not prohibited by law. . . . ” In
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)