Placer County v. Whitney Estate Co.

BUCKLES, J.

This is an action to collect $360 from the appellant as a license tax for the business of raising, grazing, herding, and pasturing sheep. The right to collect this license tax is claimed to be under an ordinance of the board of supervisors of Placer county. The ordinance reads as fol- ■ lows:

“Section 1. Every person, company or corporation engaged in or who shall hereafter engage in the business of raising, grazing, herding or pasturing sheep or goats within the county of Placer, state of California, shall procure and pay for a license therefor, from the license collector of the county of Placer, of five cents per head per annum (later changed to three cents per head) for each head of sheep and goats, grazed, herded or pastured within said county of Placer by such person, company or corporation. No license shall be issued under this ordinance for any term or period less than one year.

‘ ‘ Sec. 2. It is the duty of the license collector to collect the licenses under the ordinance, and as compensation for .collecting the same he may retain for his own use an amount equal to twenty-five per cent of the moneys collected for licenses under this ordinance, and shall pay into the treasury of Placer county all sums so collected in excess of his said compensation of twenty-five per cent, which amount shall be placed in the general road fund of Placer county. He may enforce the collection of such licenses in the manner provided by section 3360 of the Political Code of the state of California.

. “Sec. 3. Every person, company or corporation who shall neglect or refuse to procure the license provided for in section 1 of this ordinance, at the time or before the commencement of the business in .this ordinance named, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined, in addition to the amount of the license herein levied, the sum.

[616]

of one hundred dollars, to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county of Placer.

‘ ‘ Sec. 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on and after thirty days from its passage.”

The ordinance was passed April 13, 1892. Its due passage is admitted and the liability for the license tax conceded, providing the ordinance is a valid one. The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground'the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurrer overruled and the defendant declining to answer, judgment was rendered against it and in favor of plaintiff, from which judgment defendant appeals.