Town of Santa Monica v. Guidinger
TOWN OF SANTA MONICA, Respondent, v. ANGUS MATTHEW GUIDINGER, Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- Waldo M. York
- Outcome
- other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- The Court (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
*659 THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered against the defendant for the sum of fifty dollars, claimed to be due for license under the provisions of an ordinance of the town of Santa Monica, of date April 25, 1900, “for the licensing of business carried on in the town, . . . for purposes of regulation and revenue.” The defendant is charged with two license taxes of twenty-five dollars each for the year following the date of the ordinance—that being the annual date established by the ordinance—“for each person acting as agent or solicitor for any laundry whose plant or works are located without the corporate limits of the town. ’ ’
The arguments of counsel are addressed wholly to the original validity of the ordinance; but under the view we take of the case, this need not be considered. From the title of the ordinance, the absence of regulatory provisions, the amounts of the several taxes imposed, and the nature of the particular subject of taxation involved here, it is clear that the license tax in question was imposed for the purpose of raising revenue. The case is therefore substantially similar to that of the City of Sonora v. Curtin (ante, p. 583), just decided, and it must therefore be held on the authority of the decision in that case that the license tax in question was repealed, and the right of action therefor extinguished by section 3366 of the Political Code (added thereto by the act of March 23, 1901, Stats. 1901, p. 635).
The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and the action dismissed.
Cited by
- Kott v. Superior Court B099394 · 1996-05-23
- Hirsch v. Blish Civ. 50721 · 1977-12-22
- Foraker v. O'BRIEN Civ. 44915 · 1975-08-25
- Cradduck v. Financial Indemnity Co. Civ. 11177 · 1966-06-17
- Miller v. Superior Court Civ. 25588 · 1961-09-22
- Barceloux v. Dow Civ. 18424 · 1959-09-30
- Wyoming Pacific Oil Co. v. Preston L. A. 24332 · 1958-09-12
- MacDonald v. Jackson Civ. No. 18585 · 1951-12-14
- Kuzmicki v. Nelson Civ. 18105 · 1950-12-20
- Lewis v. Steifel Civ. 17435 · 1950-07-26
- Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz S. F. 17989 · 1950-01-17
- Redwood Fibre Products Co. v. Miller Manufacturing Co. Civ. 12408 · 1943-11-29
- Hise v. Superior Court S. F. 16815 · 1943-02-19
- Mitchell v. Automobile Owners Indemnity Underwriters L. A. 17146 · 1941-11-13
- Murillo v. Toole Civ. 2950 · 1941-11-12
- Vorburg v. Vorburg L. A. 17148 · 1941-10-17
- Kaufmann v. California Mining & Dredging Syndicate Sac. 5321 · 1940-08-21
- Los Angeles & West Side Transportation Co. v. Superior Court Docket No. S.F. 13831. · 1931-01-28
- People v. Herod Docket No. 4239. · 1931-01-20
- Wheeler v. Craig Docket No. L.A. 9836. · 1929-01-12
- Goularte v. Goularte Docket No. Sac. 4089. · 1928-12-13
- Davis-Heller-Pearce Co. v. Ramont Civ. No. 2757. · 1924-04-29
- Grinbaum v. Superior Court S. F. No. 10708. · 1923-12-17
- Petition of Furness Civ. No. 4058. · 1923-07-03
- Bank of South San Francisco v. Pike Civ. No. 3811. · 1921-07-15
- Clarkin v. Morris L. A. No. 4126. Department One. · 1918-04-11
- Tilton v. Russek L. A. No. 3496. · 1916-01-18
- City & County of San Francisco v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. S.F. No. 6159. · 1913-10-01
- Wilson v. Leo Civ. No. 1137. · 1912-09-25
- Merchants' National Union v. Buisseret Civ. No. 918. · 1911-02-18
- Nail v. Superior Court Civ. No. 709. · 1909-07-13
- Roberts v. Jacob L.A. No. 1809. · 1908-09-19
- Emery v. Kipp L.A. No. 2089. · 1908-07-29
- Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Etc. Co. L.A. No. 1935. · 1908-01-24
- City of L.A. v. L.A. Indep. Gas Co. L. A. No. 1935 · 1908-01-24
- Finch v. McVean Civ. No. 253. · 1907-08-23
- Hoffman v. Superior Court of S.F. S.F. No. 4755. · 1907-06-12
- Wheeler v. County of Plumas Sac. No. 1341. · 1906-10-02
- County of Sierra v. Flanigan Sac. No. 1219. · 1906-10-01
- Country of Plumas v. Wheeler Sac. No. 1361. · 1906-10-01
- Placer County v. Whitney Estate Co. Civ. No. 98. · 1906-01-05
- Shepard v. MacE L.A. Nos. 1418 and 1502. · 1905-11-29
- Cargile v. Silsbee L.A. No. 1486. · 1905-11-27
- Ex Parte Jackson Crim. No. 1143. · 1904-06-14
- Ex Parte Helm Crim. No. 1141. · 1904-06-14
- Ex Parte Braun Crim. No. 1018. · 1903-11-30
- Weis v. Cain L. A. No. 1027 · 1903-09-17