{ "id": 8595231, "name": "J. PAUL LEONARD v. A. J. MAXWELL, Commissoner of Revenue", "name_abbreviation": "Leonard v. Maxwell", "decision_date": "1939-06-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "89", "last_page": "99", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "216 N.C. 89" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "166 N. E., 640", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 Ill., 638", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 L. R. A., 227", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 N. W., 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Neb., 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 N. E., 750", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 Ill., 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5253438 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/342/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 U. S., 312", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 800", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652077 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0800-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 S. E., 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N. C., 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630778 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Ariz., 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 2432270 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/48/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 L. R. A. (N. S.), 954", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "76 S. E., 690", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N. C., 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269821 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/161/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 S. E., 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N. C., 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625297 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 N. C., 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628704 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S. E., 701", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625038 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 S. E., 453", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N. C., 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614770 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0675-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 S. E., 920", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 N. C., 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269003 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/147/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 U. S., 137", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6138105 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/264/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 Wash., 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash.,", "case_ids": [ 867091 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash/174/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 S. D., 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.D.", "case_ids": [ 2756469 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sd/61/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 N. C., 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8684218 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/29/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 N. C., 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275619 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/27/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 U. S., 89", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5707337 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/179/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 A. L. R., 1398", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N. E., 113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 Ill., 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5294795 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/352/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 U. S., 267", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3631991 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/194/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 U. S., 407", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6142483 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/273/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "281 U. S., 146", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3917076 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/281/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 U. S., 472", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3915277 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/286/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 Atl., 500", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 N. H., 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 4411358 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nh/88/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S. E., 117", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N. C., 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616304 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 U. S., 232", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8299194 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/134/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 Wash., 625", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash.,", "case_ids": [ 871962 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash/182/0625-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 Mo., 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 1897416 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/338/0409-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 S. E., 60", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 N. C., 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662046 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/129/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 Mo., 810", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8735948, 8735964 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/319/0810-01", "/mo/319/0810-02" ] }, { "cite": "288 U. S., 517", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 79745 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/288/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 S. E., 526", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N. C., 733", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653890 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/118/0733-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 U. S., 261", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8291530 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/196/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S. E., 557", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612123 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0661-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 U. S., 404", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5723730 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/296/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 U. S., 32", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 U. S., 87", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3922967 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/294/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 U. S., 525", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3683806 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/250/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 U. S., 283", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3599116 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/170/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 A. L. R., 1293", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 U. S., 548", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 547624 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/301/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 S. E., 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658906 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 U. S., 619", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1498169 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/291/0619-01" ] }, { "cite": "253 U. S., 412", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 189363 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/253/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 U. S., 172", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6138731 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/262/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S. E., 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N. C., 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651507 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/109/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 S. E., 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N. C., 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652570 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/118/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 A. L. R., 1327", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 U. S., 495", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 547697 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/301/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S. E., 424", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N. C., 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 S. E., 11", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 N. C., 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662002 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/129/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S. E., 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N. C., 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N. C., 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 S. E., 383", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N. C., 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651494 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/109/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 U. S., 227", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 S. E., 53", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 N. C., 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273638 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/134/0567-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 U. S., 575", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5717370, 5718846 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/284/0575-02", "/us/284/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S. E., 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603496 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 U. S., 730", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11729477 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/188/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 A. L. R., 1464", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 U. S., 527", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 434159 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/283/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "303 U. S., 573", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6142597 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/303/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 U. S., 563", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 407767 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/217/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S. E., 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N. C., 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653915 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/151/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 N. C., 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627761 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 U. S., 811", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6934736, 6934713, 6934700 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/282/0811-03", "/us/282/0811-02", "/us/282/0811-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S. E., 190", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630594 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 S. E., 415", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N. C., 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654665 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S. E., 22", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N. C., 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631928 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 S. E., 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 N. C., 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654725 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/188/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S. E., 761", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630533 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S. E., 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N. C., 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607441 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S. E., 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N. C., 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628838 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0501-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1306, "char_count": 28510, "ocr_confidence": 0.495, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.67580461760392e-07, "percentile": 0.9625536083377834 }, "sha256": "67386eefc6f39bdc492bf5e3a61f5e3c12f637b558a46e04a472fc66ed4bd764", "simhash": "1:2fce3493e8b283a2", "word_count": 4933 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:30.134660+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. PAUL LEONARD v. A. J. MAXWELL, Commissoner of Revenue." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe office of a demurrer is to test tbe sufficiency of a pleading, admitting, for tbe purpose, tbe truth of factual averments well stated and such relevant inferences as may be deduced therefrom, but it \u25a0does not admit any legal inferences or conclusions of law asserted by tbe pleader. Pearce v. Privette, 213 N. C., 501, 196 S. E., 843; Kirby v. Reynolds, 212 N. C., 271, 193 S. E., 412; Ballinger v. Thomas, 195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761; Manning v. R. R., 188 N. C., 648, 125 S. E., 555. We must, therefore, look to tbe allegations of tbe complaint to ascertain tbe questions presented.\nFirst. It is alleged that the act in question is void, in that it purports to levy a 3% tax on tbe gross sales of every \u201cretail merchant\u201d as therein defined, \u201cfor tbe privilege of engaging or continuing in tbe business of selling tangible personal property,\u201d witb the provision that the maximum tax on the sale of any single article of merchandise shall be $15.00, and, at the same time, numerous \u201cretail merchants\u201d engaged in selling tangible personal property are exempted from its provisions, without any reasonable basis for such exemptions, thus resulting in arbitrary dis criminations.\nWhat are the alleged invalidating exemptions appearing on the face of the statute? In summary they follow: Sales of (1) ice; (2) medicines on physician\u2019s prescription, or compounded, processed or blended by the druggist; (3) products of farms, forests, mines, and waters, when sold by the producers in original or unmanufactured state; (4) fish and sea foods when sold by the fishermen; (5) commercial fertilizers on which inspection tax is paid, and lime and land plaster used for agricultural purposes; (6) public school books on adopted list; (7) used articles taken in trade on sale of new articles and resale of repossessed articles. Exempted also are sales to governments and governmental agencies. Conditional exemptions are allowed on sales of primary and essential articles of food, specifically enumerated, the condition being-that the merchant shall keep separate records of such sales.\nIt is further alleged that certain building materials are arbitrarily exempted from the retail sales tax, and a similar allegation is made in respect of gasoline.\nComplaint is also lodged against the following provision: \u201cRetail merchants may add to the price of merchandise the amount of the tax on the sale thereof, and when so added shall constitute a part of such price, shall be a debt from purchaser to merchant until paid, and shall be recoverable at law in the same manner as other debts. It is the-purpose and intent of this article that the tax levied herein on retail sales shall be added to the sales price of merchandise and thereby be-passed on to the consumer instead of being absorbed by the merchant.\u201d\nThe statute provides that any retail merchant who shall, by public-advertisement, offer to absorb the sales tax, or advertise th\u00e1t the tax is not considered as an element in the price to the consumer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.\nIt is observed m limine that while the plaintiff alleges the tax in question was not added to the purchase price of the merchandise sold, nor collected by him from the purchasers, the statute gave him this right, and he still has a remedy to save himself harmless from any loss by reason of the imposition of the tax. Whether this circumstance takes from the plaintiff the right to challenge the constitutionality of the act was not considered below, nor has it been urged here, S. v. Lueders, 214 N. C., 558, 200 S. E., 22, doubtless for the reason that notwithstanding the opportunity afforded the retail merchant to pass. tbe tax on to the consumer, the tax itself is in terms levied on \u201cthe privilege of engaging or continuing in the business of selling tangible personal property.\u201d Bickett v. State Tax Com., 177 N. C., 433, 99 S. E., 415.\nAs a further preliminary consideration, it may be noted that the right of classification in matters of taxation was expanded or enlarged by amendment to Art. Y, sec. 3 of the Constitution, adopted at the general election held in November, 1936, and now extends to property for ad valorem as well as franchise purposes, subject to the provision that \u201cThe power of taxation shall be exercised in a just and equitable manner. Taxes on property shall be uniform as to each class of property taxed.\u201d Chap. 248, Public Laws 1935. It may also be noted that the requirements of \u201cuniformity,\u201d \u201cequal protection,\u201d and \u201cdue process\u201d are, for all practical purposes, the same under both the State and Federal Constitutions. Clark v. Maxwell, 197 N. C., 604, 150 S. E., 190, affirmed 282 U. S., 811.\nIt is conceded that the power to-impose license or franchise taxes of the character here in question is undoubted, and the right of selection or classification is referred largely to the legislative will, with the limitation that it must be reasonable and not capricious or arbitrary. Belk Bros. v. Maxwell, 215 N. C., 10; Land Co. v. Smith, 151 N. C., 70, 65 S. E., 641; Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217 U. S., 563.\nThis discretion in the selection of subjects of taxation extends not only to the classification of trades, callings, businesses, or occupations to he taxed, but also to the classification of property to be taxed. Bickett v. State Tax Com., supra; Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York, 303 U. S., 573; State Board of Tax Comrs. v. Jackson, 283 U. S., 527, 73 A. L. R., 1464; Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S., 730.\nThese propositions have been established by the decisions:\n1. A sales tax or a tax on the business of selling tangible personal property, levied as a license or privilege tax, is within the power of the taxing authority. Tea Co. v. Maxwell, 199 N. C., 433, 154 S. E., 838, affirmed 284 U. S., 575; Lacy v. Packing Co., 134 N. C., 567, 47 S. E., 53, affirmed 200 U. S., 227; S. v. French, 109 N. C., 722, 14 S. E., 383, 26 A. S. R., 590; Gatlin v. Tarboro, 78 N. C., 122.\n2. In levying a sales tax as a license or privilege tax, the General Assembly may set apart certain trades, callings, or occupations for imposition of the tax and exclude others from its operation. Smith v. Wilkins, 164 N. C., 136, 80 S. E., 168. The tax may be fixed at a flat rate for some, graduated as to others, and withheld from others. S. v. Carter, 129 N. C., 560, 40 S. E., 11; S. v. Powell, 100 N. C., 526, 65 S. E., 424. One business may be taxed and another left untaxed. Carmichael v. So. Coal & Coke Co., 301 U. S., 495, 109 A. L. R., 1327.\n3. Reasonable selection or classification of tbe subjects for snob taxation may be made by tbe General Assembly and different rates or different modes and methods of assessment applied to different classes. Rosenbaum, v. New Bern, 118 N. C., 83, 24 S. E., 1; S. v. Stevenson, 109 N. C., 730, 14 S. E., 385, 26 A. S. R., 595. A wide latitude is accorded tbe taxing authorities in tbe selection of subjects for taxation, particularly in respect of occupation taxes. Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Lord, 262 U. S., 172.\n4. Tbe limitation on tbe legislative discretion is that tbe classification \u201cmust be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to tbe object of tbe legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.\u201d Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S., 412. \u201cTbe power of tbe legislature in this matter of classification is very broad and comprehensive, subject only to tbe limitation that it must appear to have been made upon some \u2018reasonable ground \u2014 something that bears a just and proper relation to the attempted classification, and not a mere arbitrary selection.\u2019 \u201d Land Co. v. Smith, supra.\n5. Equality within tbe class or for those of like station and condition is all that is required to meet tbe test of constitutionality. S. v. Stevenson, supra. \u201cA tax on trades, etc., must be considered uniform when it is equal upon all persons belonging to tbe prescribed class upon which it is imposed.\u201d Gatlin v. Tarboro, supra.\n6. Discrimination may exist among tbe classes. Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York, supra. Tbe equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination in respect of matters and things that are different. Puget Sound P. & L. Co. v. Seattle, 291 U. S., 619.\n7. In proper instances, exemptions from tbe general rule of either persons or property may be regarded as permissible limitations or as allowable exceptions made in tbe exercise of tbe power of classification. Smith v. Wilkins, supra; Cobb v. Comrs., 122 N. C., 307, 30 S. E., 338; Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S., 548, 109 A. L. R., 1293. \u201cTbe rule of equality permits many practical inequalities. And necessarily so. . . . What satisfies this equality has not been and probably never can be precisely defined.\u201d Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Barde, 170 U. S., 283. \u201cAnd inequalities that result not from hostile discrimination, but occasionally and incidentally in the application of a system that is not arbitrary in its classification, are not sufficient to defeat tbe law.\u201d Maxwell v. Rugbee, 250 U. S., 525. \u201cTbe operation of a general rule will seldom be tbe same for every one. If tbe accidents of trade lead to inequality or hardship, tbe consequences must be accepted as inherent in government by law instead of government by edict.\u201d Fox v. Standard Oil Co., 294 U. S., 87.\n8. Finally and in brief, tbe test is this: Does tbe classification rest upon a relevantly rational basis and is tbe tax uniform in respect of those similarly situated? Louisville Gas Co. v. Coleman, 217 U. S., 32. \u201cTbe boundary between wbat is permissible and wbat is forbidden by tbe constitutional requirement bas never been precisely fixed and is incapable of exact delimitation.\u201d Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U. S., 404.\nApplying these principles to tbe provisions of the act in question, it is observed, first, that tbe classification and exemptions apply alike to all retail merchants affected by tbe act; and, secondly, that reasonable and pertinent bases for such classification and exemptions are readily discernible. This is all that is required to sustain tbe constitutionality of tbe act. Provision Co. v. Maxwell, 199 N. C., 661, 155 S. E., 557. Tbe exemptions upheld in tbe case of Smith v. Wilkins, supra, cover nearly all tbe articles here challenged. In many instances they are tbe same, e.g., ice, products of farm, fish, books,-etc. Similar distinctions may be pointed out in respect of tbe other exceptions made in tbe Emergency Eevenue Act of 1937.\nGiven tbe power of classification based on reasonable differences, tbe General Assembly may place proprietary medicines in one class, and those prepared on prescription or compounded by tbe druggist in another. It may tax one of these classes according to one rule, and tbe other according to another; or it may tax one and refuse to tax tbe other. Smith v. Wilkins, supra. Likewise, throughout tbe list of exemptions enumerated in tbe statute, reasonable distinctions may be suggested. It is proper to classify merchants as \u201cwholesalers\u201d and \u201cretailers,\u201d and tax them differently. Cook v. Marshall, 196 U. S., 261. Merchants dealing in second-hand clothing may be separated from other merchants. Rosenbaum v. New Bern, supra. Brokers and pawnbrokers may be put in different classes. Schaul v. Charlotte, 118 N. C., 733, 24 S. E., 526. Tbe integrated chain store as compared with tbe voluntary type may be made tbe basis of differentiation. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U. S., 517. One business may be taxed and another of an allied kind exempted. Lacy v. Packing Co., supra. Tbe sale of cigarettes may be taxed and other tobacco products not. Ex parte Asotsky, 319 Mo., 810, 5 S. W. (2d), 22. Commercial fertilizers, lime and land plaster may be exempted in aid of agriculture without doing violence to tbe rule of uniformity. S. v. Spaugh, 129 N. C., 564, 40 S. E., 60. So, also, may sales to governments and governmental agencies be exempted, State v. Smith, 338 Mo., 409, 90 S. W. (2d), 405, as well as primary and essential articles of food. Morrow v. Henneford, 182 Wash., 625, 47 Pac. (2d), 1016. Likewise tbe sales of farm and other products when sold by tbe producer in the original or unmanufactured state may be exempted from tbe general tax. S. v. Stevenson, supra; S. v. French, supra.\nOther instances might be cited, but the foregoing will suffice to show the trend of the decisions on the subject and to indicate how slight the differences need be, when pertinent and real, to sustain the classification and to obtain the imprimatur of judicial approval. Colgate v. Harvey, supra. Indeed, it is not after the manner of the courts to strike down such legislation if it can be upheld on any reasonable ground. Belle's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S., 232. The presumption in favor of validity is in full support of the rule. S. v. Lueders, supra. Of necessity, no unbending rule of equality can be applied in such cases. Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York, supra. The power to classify ex necessitate carries with it the discretion to select the subjects of taxation and to grant exemptions. In the nature of things, narrow distinctions are sometimes invoked, and if founded on a rational basis and reasonably related to the object of the legislation, the courts will not say that a different result should have been reached or that the differentiation is arbitrary. Provision Co. v. Maxwell, supra. \u201cSuch differences need not be great.\u201d State Board of Tax Comrs. v. Jackson, supra. However, \"mere difference is not enough.\u201d Louisville Gas Co. v. Coleman, supra. It must be relevant or pertinent as well as rational.\nThe matter is covered in a pithy paragraph by Mr. Justice Holmes in the case last cited, where he says: \u201cWhen a legal distinction is determined, as no one doubts that it may be, between night and day, childhood and maturity, or any other extremes, a point has to be fixed or a line has to be drawn, or gradually picked out by successive decisions, to mark where the change takes place. Looked at by itself without regard to the necessity behind it the line or point seems arbitrary. It might as well or nearly as well be a little more to one side or the other. But when it is seen that a line or point there must be, and that there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of any reasonable mark.\u201d\nThe allegations pertaining to building materials and gasoline are wanting in accuracy. The\u2018tax on specified building materials is levied on the purchaser or user, and not on the seller, except when sold by a \u201cwholesale merchant.\u201d Supply Co. v. Maxwell, 212 N. C., 624, 194 S. E., 117. Of this, the plaintiff is in no position to complain. Likewise, it is provided that \u201ca proportion of the tax of six cents per gallon\u201d on gasoline otherwise taxed, \u201cshall be deemed in satisfaction of the tax upon retail sales levied in this article.\u201d This meets the requirement of constitutionality. Re Opinion of Justices, 88 N. H., 500, 190 Atl., 500. Moreover, no facts are alleged to show injury to the plaintiff from any discrimination within these classes. He is not engaged in the business of selling either building materials or gasoline.\nThe fact, if it be a fact as plaintiff alleges, that all \u201cretail merchants\u201d engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property, are, by the terms of the act, placed in a single category, and then numerous withdrawals are made in the form of exemptions, amounts in the end to no more than the exercise of the power of classification. The method of selection is not material, so long as the results are lawful. Gregg Dyeing Co. v. Query, 286 U. S., 472.\nIf it be thought the suggested reasons underlying these exemptions and advanced in favor of their validity, are subject to some debate in the field of pure logic, it is enough to say they were regarded as sufficient in the legislative halls and are well understood by those acquainted with the life of our people. Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., supra. Moreover, it should be remembered that in devising a scheme of taxation, \u201cthe State is not required to resort to close distinctions or to maintain a precise, scientific uniformity with reference to composition, use, or value.\u201d Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U. S., 146. Nor is it confined to a formula of rigid uniformity. Swiss Oil Corp. v. Shanks, 273 U. S., 407. It may tax some kinds of property at one rate, and others at another, and exempt others altogether. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. \u201cSome play must be allowed for the joints of the machine.\u201d M. T. & K. Ry. Co. v. May, 194 U. S., 267.\nThe plaintiff derives a modicum of comfort from the decision in Winter v. Barrett, 352 Ill., 441, 186 N. E., 113, 89 A. L. R., 1398. It supports his position. The case has not been followed in other jurisdictions, however, and is not controlling here. It is at variance with a number of pronouncements elsewhere. See Amer. Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U. S., 89; Bank v. Edwards, 27 N. C., 516; Bank v. Deming, 29 N. C., 55; State ex rel. Botkin v. Welsh, 61 S. D., 593, 251 N. W., 189; State ex rel. Stiner v. Telle, 174 Wash., 402, 25 Pac. (2d), 91.\nThe provisions in respect of passing the tax on to the consumer, and prohibiting the retail merchant from advertising otherwise, are not here involved. Pierce Oil Co. v. Hopkins, 264 U. S., 137. The plaintiff has alleged no hurt from these provisions. St. George v. Hardie, 147 N. C., 88, 60 S. E., 920. If others have been aggrieved thereby, it suffices to say the plaintiff can speak only for himself. In matters of constitutional challenge, he is not his brother\u2019s keeper. Newman v. Comrs. of Vance, 208 N. C., 675, 182 S. E., 453.\nSecond. It is further alleged that the maximum tax of $15.00 on the sale of any single article of merchandise is arbitrary, and perforce results in discrimination.\nThe plaintiff has aimed his hardest blows at this provision. He points out that the limitation is not on a single sale, but on the sale of a single article. Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U. S.; 550. Conceivably, be says, one merchant may sell a number of articles for $1,000 and pay a tax of $30, while another sells a single article for a like amount and is taxed $15, the only basis of distinction being in the number of articles sold, with the limitation favoring the sale of the single article. Tea Co. v. Doughton, 196 N. C., 145, 144 S. E., 701; S. v. Dixon, 215 N. C., 161.\nThe defendant, on the other hand, suggests that the limitation has the effect of creating a class of articles selling for $500 and more, and in no way offends against the legislative discretion of classification. Powell v. Maxwell, 210 N. C., 211, 186 S. E., 326. At most, he says, it is an uniform restriction applicable alike to all. Wayne Mercantile Co. v. Mt. Olive, 161 N. C., 121, 76 S. E., 690, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.), 954. If the sale of articles of small value may be exempted for administrative reasons, Drug Co. v. Lulee, 48 Ariz., 467, 62 P. (2d), 1126, the limitation of the tax upon the sale of any single article would seem to be allowable on practical or economic grounds. Carmichael v. So. Coal & Coke Co., supra; Ficklen Tob. Co. v. Maxwell, 214 N. C., 367, 199 S. E., 405.\nAs the total tax which plaintiff seeks to recover is only $3.13, and therefore less than th\u00bf maximum tax collectible on the sale of any single article, it would seem that he is in no position to complain at the limitation. For aught that appears, he has suffered no injury. His tax has not been increased thereby. Nor could he derive any benefit from a favorable decision on the point, because in sec. 839 it is provided that if any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of the act be adjudged invalid, \u201csuch judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this act, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.\u201d Biggsbee v. Durham, 94 N. C., 800; Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S., 312. The plaintiff\u2019s present position is not that of one who can challenge the validity of the provision. St. George v. Hardie, supra.\nThird. The third ground upon which the plaintiff assails the validity of the act is, that the General Assembly of 1937 was not properly constituted because no reapportionment was made at the first session after the last census as required by Art. II, secs. 4, 5, and 6 of the Constitution, and that none of the legislation attempted at this session can be regarded as possessing the sanctity of law. In other words, as the first session of the General Assembly after the 1930 census was the session directed by the Constitution to make the reapportionment, and failed to do so, it is suggested .that no other session is competent to make the reapportionment or to enact any valid legislation and that henceforth no de jure or legally constituted General Assembly can again be convened under the present Constitution. Quite a devastating argument, if sound.\nPlaintiff concedes in Ms brief, however, and. rightly so, that the authorities are against him on this point. People ex rel. Fergus v. Blackwell et al., Members of the General Assembly, 342 Ill., 223, 173 N. E., 750. The question is a political one, and there is nothing the courts can do about it. State ex rel. Cromelieu v. Boyd, 36 Neb., 182, 54 N. W., 252, 19 L. R. A., 227. They do not cruise in nonjusticiable waters. Coleman v. Miller, 305 U. S., ........., decided 5 June, 1939.\nThe allegation in the complaint is but a conclusion of the pleader, and is untenable. People v. Clardy, 334 Ill., 638, 166 N. E., 640.\nIt results, therefore, that the demurrer was properly sustained.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Fred M. Parrish and Walter E. Johnston, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.", "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Gregory for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. PAUL LEONARD v. A. J. MAXWELL, Commissoner of Revenue.\n(Filed 16 June, 1939.)\n1. Pleadings \u00a7 20\u2014\nA demurrer tests the sufficiency of a pleading, admitting for the purpose the allegations of fact and relevant inferences of fact deducible therefrom, but it does not admit inferences or conclusions of law.\n2. Taxation \u00a7 2a \u2014 Legislature may make reasonable classification of articles for computation of sales tax.\nThe Legislature may levy a sales tax or a tax on the business of selling tangible personal property, levied as a license or privilege tax, and classify trades, callings, and occupations for the imposition of the tax, and classify articles sold as the basis for computing the tax, exempting certain classes of articles and providing a graduated tax as to other classes of articles, or differentiate in the method of collecting the tax as to some of the classes, provided the levy applies equally and uniformly to all who fall within each particular classification, and provided the classifications are reasonable and based upon some real distinction.\n3. Same \u2014 Classifications of property for sales tax made by the Revenue Act of 1937 held reasonable and valid.\nThe provision of Art. V, Schedule E, of the Revenue Act of 1937, making a distinction between wholesale and retail merchants, and exempting sales of ice, medicines on a prescription, fish and farm products when sold in the original or unmanufactured state, commercial fertilizer, agricultural lime and plaster, public school books, sale of used or repossessed articles, and sales to the Government or governmental agencies, etc., constitute classifications based upon reasonable and real distinctions, and an allegation that the act is void as imposing arbitrary discriminations in making such classifications is untenable.\n4. Constitutional Law \u00a7 6b: Statutes \u00a7 5b\u2014\nThe presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, and the courts will not declare a statute unconstitutional if it can be upheld on any reasonable ground.\n5. Taxation \u00a7 2a\u2014\nArt. V, Schedttle E, of the Revenue Act of 1937, providing that a proportion of the six cents per gallon gasoline tax should be deemed in satisfaction of the privilege sales tax levied by the act, is valid.\n6. Taxation \u00a7 38c: Constitutional Law \u00a7 6b \u2014 Party may not attack constitutionality of statute in absence of showing that he has suffered injury thereby.\nThis action was instituted by a taxpayer to recover a sum paid under protest levied by the Commissioner of Revenue as a privilege sales tax under the provision of Art. V, Schedule E, of the Revenue Act of 1937. It was not alleged in the complaint that plaintiff: was engaged in the business of selling building materials or gasoline. Hel\u00e9: No facts are alleged showing injury to plaintiff from the provisions of the act relating to the tax on sales of building materials and gasoline, and he is not entitled to attack the constitutionality of the statute in respect thereto.\n7. Taxation \u00a7 2a\u2014\nThe fact that a privilege sales tax is levied upon all retail merchants as a single category with exemptions relating to certain classes of articles sold, amounts in effect to classifications for the purpose of taxation, and are valid if the classifications are reasonable, the method by which the classifications are made being immaterial.\n8. Taxation \u00a7 38c: Constitutional Law \u00a7 6b \u2014 Party may not attack constitutionality of statute in absence of showing that he has suffered injury thereby.\nThis action was instituted by a taxpayer to recover an amount paid under protest as a privilege sales tax levied by the Commissioner of Revenue under the provision of Art. V, Schedule E, of the Revenue Act of 1937. The complaint did not allege facts showing any injury resulting to plaintiff by reason of the provision of the act requiring that the tax should be passed on to the consumer, nor that the tax sought to be recovered was paid under the provision of the act imposing a maximum tax of $15 on the sale of any single article of merchandise. Held,: In the absence of a showing of injury, plaintiff is not entitled to attack the' provisions as being discriminatory and unconstitutional.\n9. Constitutional Law \u00a7 6a: Statutes \u00a7 5b \u2014 Reapportionment is a political and not a judicial question.\nPlaintiff attacked the validity of an act of the General 'Assembly of 1937 upon allegations that no reapportionment had been made at the first session after the 1930 census as required by Art. II, sections 4, 5 and 6, of the State Constitution, and that therefore the General Assembly passing the act was not properly constituted, and that no legislation attempted thereat was valid. Held: Reapportionment is a political and not a judicial question and the allegation of invalidity is a mere conclusion of the pleader and is untenable.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Hamilton, Special Judge, at February Term, 1939, of Eobsyth.\nCivil action to recover sales tax paid under protest, and alleged to Rave been wrongfully and illegally collected under tbe Emergency Revenue Act of 1937.\nOn 30 August, 1938, tbe plaintiff, in response to demand tberefor and after bearing, paid to tbe defendant, under protest, $3.13 being 3% of tbe gross amount of sales made by tbe plaintiff as a \u201cretail merchant\u201d during tbe month of May, 1938, and immediately demanded refund thereof, which was declined. In apt time and pursuant to tbe provisions of tbe statute, plaintiff brings this action to recover back tbe tax so paid.\nPlaintiff seeks to recover tbe tax on tbe ground that Art. Y, Schedule E, of tbe Revenue Act of 1937 (chap. 127), under which it was collected and paid, is unconstitutional. Liability for tbe tax is conceded if tbe act be valid.\nTbe statute is assailed on three grounds: (1) Discrimination, in that it is alleged tbe statute is not applicable to all \u201cretail merchants\u201d alike; (2) Arbitrariness, in that tbe maximum tax on tbe sale of any single article of merchandise is fixed at $15.00 without any reasonable basis tberefor; and (3) Disqualification of members of tbe General Assembly, for that no reapportionment was made at tbe first session after tbe last general census as required by Art. II, secs. 4, 5, and 6 of tbe Constitution.\nDemurrer interposed on tbe ground that tbe complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurrer sustained and from ruling thereon tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nFred M. Parrish and Walter E. Johnston, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Gregory for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0089-01", "first_page_order": 155, "last_page_order": 165 }