Haas v. Remick

Citations

• 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 591

Syllabus

<p>2. Taxation of Liquor Business Conducted Contrary to County Local Option is License Proscribed by Constitution.</p> <p>Taxation, as distinguished from license, can only be imposed upon a lawful business;. to-impose a tax upon the business of. trafficking in intoxicating liquors as provided by act 98 O. L. 99, the right to carry on the business where located and ownership of such right in the party assessed must exist. Imposing a tax in counties having voted dry under act 99 O. L. 35 upon an unlawful liquor business savors of license and is unconstitutional.</p> <p>3 State Precluded by Local Option Acts of County under Rose Law from Imposing Dow Tax upon Unlawful Liquor Business Therein.</p> <p>Counties are component parts of the state and unlike municipalities which are but creatures of the state, in which state laws are not superseded by municipal ordinances, the state having authorized its constituent parts to prohibit the liquor business therein under a general law, such as act 99 O. L. 35, and to make such business criminal, the prohibitory acts of such component part is binding upon the state precluding the imposition of a tax thereon under an earlier conflicting general law.</p> <p>4. Boat of Nonresident of State Unlawfully Impressed by Another in Liquor Business not Liable to Distraint for Liquor Tax.</p> <p>A boat owned by a citizen of another state surreptitiously brought into this state and, without his knowledge or consent, used by another in the unlawful business of trafficking in intoxicating liquors in a dry county thereof, is not subject to distraint for taxes imposed by Sec. 4 of act 83 O. L. 157 and Sec. 2 of amendatory act 98 O. L. 99 against the person unlawfully appropriating it to such illegal uses, to do otherwise would be contrary to the doctrine of due process of law.</p> <p>[Syllabus approved by the court.]</p>