Opinion · Supreme Court of South Carolina
City of Laurens v. Elmore
City of Laurens v. Elmore, 45 L.R.A. 249 (S.C. 1899)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of South Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- South Carolina
- Date
- 1899-07-06
- Topic
- bankruptcy
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Pope. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, which reversed the judgment of the mayor’s court of the city of Laurens, wherein the defendant was adjudged guilty of the violation of an ordinance of such city, fixing a special license tax for all occupations carried on within said city of Laurens, S. C. It- seems that The Chicago Portrait Company, of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, is engaged in the business of enlarging pictures or photographs, and selling frames to such pictures. .This company carries on this work through agents, who deliver such work when completed under a contract previously made between the customer and said company.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed City of Laurens v. Elmore. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 3 opinions
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, which reversed the judgment of the mayor’s court of the city of Laurens, wherein the defendant was adjudged guilty of the violation of an ordinance of such city, fixing a special license tax for all occupations carried on within said city of Laurens, S. C. It- seems that The Chicago Portrait Company, of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, is engaged in the business of enlarging pictures or photographs, and selling frames to such pictures. .This company carries on this work through agents, who deliver such work when completed under a contract previously made between the customer and said company. To purchase the frame is entirely voluntary, but the company only sends frames to its customers in contracts for enlarging pictures or photographs. Of course, it is lawful for the city of Laurens to exact a license from persons doing business within the limits of such city, unless the same contravenes the laws of the United States.
The Circuit Judge held that the proposed special license was in contravention of the clause of the United States Constitution which confides to Congress the power to regulate inter
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
Mr. Justice Gary concurs in result.