Hon. J. M. Bradley, Circuit Judge. The only effect of par. 5 Sec. 4, or of the 5th division of Sec. 5. Rev. Act 1883, was to practically amend Sec’s. 2 & 4 of Act March 8th 1879, so that dealers as referred to in these sections could sell in any quantity.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1884-11-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 2004
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1The Drew County Court required Bennett to pay a County tax of $45Q before it would grant him a license to keep a dram-shop for the year 1884. He paid it under protest and sued the County for $50, alleging that no more than $400 could be legally demanded of him for this purpose. The County Court dismissed his petition upon demurrer; but in the Circuit Court on appeal, it was ordered that the $50 be refunded.
¶2trialc^coa^ie of Constitutional restraints, the regulaof the traffic in liquors is wholly within legislative control. The G-eneral Assembly may prohibit it altogether, or may empower municipal corporations to do so within their limits; it may k ave the traffic open to all who choose to engage in it, without any restrictions ; or may provide that the business shall be carried on only under specified conditions and upon the payment of certain license fees. And the counties, cities and towns derive their power to impose a tax for the exercise of the privilege solely from the statutes upon the subject.
¶32. Excess recover°ab51 from couaty Under the Act of March 8, 1879, vendors of liquors in quantities not less than one quart,’ where the same was , . not to be drunk on the premises, were required to pay for a license, besides certain commissions to the Collector and certain fees to the Clerk, $200, one-half of which was for the use of the County and the remainder for the State. For the privilege of keeping a drinking saloon, they had to pay, in addition to the aforementioned amounts, such further sum for the use of the County, as the County Court in its discretion might determine, not less than $50, nor more than $200. (Sec’s. 2, 4 and 11 of the Act).
¶4The Revenue Act of March 31,1883, Sec’s. 4 and 6, directs the levy and collection of an annual State tax of $300 and County tax of $400 upon all liquor-dealei’s.
¶5This supersedes so much of the former Act as fixes the price of license and invests the County Court with any discretion in the matter and establishes a new rule, which is to be uniform throughout the State. . The machinery for obtaining the privilege is left intact.
¶6It follows that the excess over $400 which Bennett was made to pay as a County tax was an illegal exaction and he was entitled to recover it.
