{
  "id": 1390021,
  "name": "Fitzgerald v. Gates",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fitzgerald v. Gates",
  "decision_date": "1930-11-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "655",
  "last_page": "659",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ark. 655"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 Ky. 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ky.",
      "case_ids": [
        4387836
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/132/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S. W. 296",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Wall. 533",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "case_ids": [
        3444197
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/75/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 So. 731",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 Ala. 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        3545466
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/134/0414-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 So. 450",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 Ala. 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ala. App. 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1636345,
        1635963,
        1635924,
        1636358
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala-app/16/0679-01",
        "/ala-app/16/0679-02",
        "/ala-app/16/0679-04",
        "/ala-app/16/0679-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S. E. 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 Ga. 229",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 U. S. 576",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3672856
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/232/0576-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N. E. 675",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 Ill. 605",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5161874
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/320/0605-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S. E. 427",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 Va. 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Va.",
      "case_ids": [
        1865049
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/va/140/0312-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 S. W. 763",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 Ark. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1407990
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/172/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 S. W. (2d) 406",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 Ark. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1393520
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/180/0096-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 385,
    "char_count": 5068,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1813549812920936e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7724552666970159
    },
    "sha256": "4298fe45950fc65789f15c8228f6adfefc8584c6a4e20145b5cf30ab4610816a",
    "simhash": "1:4518955819f0c257",
    "word_count": 893
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:23.350304+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fitzgerald v. Gates."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ejkby, J.,\n(after stating\u2019 the facts). In MerGim'i'ts\u2019 Transfer & Warehouse Co. v. Gates, 180 Ark. 96, 21 S. W. (2d) 406, the court construing\u2019 the act under consideration, held that act 65 of 1929, \u00a7 67, providing for a privilege tax of 4 per cent, repealed \u00a7 6 of act 62 of the same session of the General Assembly, providing for a 3 per cent. tax. It was said there that the forceful argument that the statute would be burdensome on small operators of motor buses could not be considered by the court for the reason that it would be an invasion by the judiciary of the province of the legislative department of the State, and, \u201cwhen acting within constitutional limits in the passage of a statute upon a given subject, the Legislature is \u25a0the sole judge of the wisdom, expediency and necessity of its enactment, and its action is not the subject of review by the court. \u2019 \u2019 The court expressly declined to pass upon the question, it not being properly raised, \u201cas to whether the amount of tax was so great as to be excessive, arbitrary and discriminatory and confiscatory in its nature.\u201d\nThis complaint does not allege that the tax provided for by \u00a7 67 of the said act is arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive and confiscatory, but only that \u201cas applied to this plaintiff\u2019s business,\u201d it is so and would confiscate his property and deprive him thereof without due process of law. It was also alleged the amount appellant had realized from his business during the period and the amount of expenses he had been compelled to pay in its operation, showing a loss of a substantial sum, which would be further increased if he were compelled to pay the tax in the amount of $681.88. It was not alleged that the amount paid out for operating expenses of the business was not unreasonable nor more than was reasonably required for the operation thereof. In other words, appellant contends that the act \u201cas applied to his business\u201d is arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive and confiscatory, and therefore invalid. He alleges, however, not that the general business required by the act to pay the tax, but only that his business, was carried on at a loss, without consideration of the amount of the tax required to be paid, showing the revenues received and the expenses paid in the operation thereof. It is no longer questioned that the State has the power to levy such a privilege tax. Merchants\u2019 Transfer & Warehouse Co. v. Gates, supra ; Cyclopedia Automobile Law, p. 6, and cases there cited ; Hester v. R. R. Com., 172 Ark. 90, 287 S. W. 763 ; Gruber v. Commonwealth, 140 Va. 312, 125 S. E. 427 ; Checker Taxi Co. v. Collins, 320 Ill. 605, 151 N. E. 675. .In 26 R. C. L. 238, it is. said:\n\u201cAn excise is, however, to be judged by its effect upon persons or corporations generally, and is not to be considered unreasonable because it is prohibitive upon certain financially weak persons or corporations. Only those excise laws whose general operation is confiscatory and oppressive are unconstitutional. See also Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576, 34 S. Ct. 372, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) .738.\n\u201cWhether a license tax is prohibitory is primarily a legislative question. \u2018All presumptions and intendments are in favor of the validity of the tax;\u2014in other words, the mere amount of the tax does not prove its invalidity.\u2019 The reasonableness of an occupation tax does not depend on whether or not a hardship results in an isolated case, but instead upon the general operation of the tax in the class to which it applies. The amount of the tax is not to be measured by the profits of the business taxed, and the mere fact that the particular person taxed conducted his business at a loss does not of itself make a tax unreasonable.\u201d Cooley, Taxation (4th ed.) 3433. See also Wright v. Hirsch, 153 Ga. 229, 116 S. E. 795 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Decatur, 16 Ala. App. 679, 81 So. 199 ; N. C. & St. L. v. Attalla, 118 Ala. 364, 24 So. 450 ; N. C. & St. L. v. Ala. City, 134 Ala. 414, 32 So. 731 ; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 19 L. ed. 482 ; Merchants\u2019 Transfer & Warehouse Co. v. Gates, supra.\nIn the case of Fiscal Court v. F. & A. Cox Co., 117 S. W. 296, 132 Ky. 738, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83, relied upon by appellant, the order of the Fiscal Court of Owen County imposing a license by authority of the statutes was held void chiefly because the classification made by it in levying the tax was manifestly unequal and unreasonable\u2014an unjust discrimination between the subdivisions so made. It should not be regarded as cf great weight in support of the contention made that the statute providing the tax should be declared unreasonable and arbitrary because it appears to be oppressive and confiscatory, imposing a hardship in an isolated case.\nNo error was committed in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint for want of equity, and the decree is accordingly affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ejkby, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u25a0 Cravens & Cravens, for appellant.",
      "Sal L. Norwood, Attorney General, Walter L. Pope, Assistant, David A. Gates and Sam Borex, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fitzgerald v. Gates.\nOpinion delivered November 10, 1930.\n\u25a0 Cravens & Cravens, for appellant.\nSal L. Norwood, Attorney General, Walter L. Pope, Assistant, David A. Gates and Sam Borex, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0655-01",
  "first_page_order": 675,
  "last_page_order": 679
}