Board of Commissioners v. Taylor
6 S.E. 114
N.C.
1888
Check Treatment
Davis, J.,

(after stating the case). We think there can be no doubt as to the validity of the provision in the charter of the town of Winston which authorizes the Commissioners “ to levy and collect annually a privilege or license tax on all trades,” &c., mentioned in the charter. Wilmington v. Macks, 86 N. C., 88; Holland v. Isler, 77 N. C., 1.

It is also clear that the authorities of the town can impose no taxes except as authorized by its charter. Commissioners v. Means, 7 Ired., 406; Pullen v. Commissioners, 68 N. C., 451; State v. Bean, 91 N. C., 554.

The counsel for the defendants insists that they are not buyers or dealers in leaf tobacco within the meaning of the ordinance ; that they only purchase their stock of tobacco on the floors of the warehouses in Winston to be used in their factory in Salem, and not being residents of Winston they cannot be taxed there. The question is purely one of construction, and we think the case of Moore v. Commissioners of Fayetteville, 80 N. C., 154, cited by counsel for defendants to distinguish it from this case, is authority for the position that the trade, profession, business operations, &c., of nonresidents, carried on in the town, may be taxed for municipal purposes, if authorized by its charter and ordinances.

In that case the plaintiffs resided outside of the corporate limits of the town of Fayetteville, but carried on his business as a merchant in the town. ■ He owned bank stock in a bank located in the town, on which the corporate authorities attempted to collect a tax such as was assessed upon similar property possessed by residents.

*214 In that case the Chief Justice, after citing Buie v. Commissioners of Fayetteville, 79 N. C., 267, in which it was held that shares of stock in National Banks, held by persons residing in the State, are subject to taxation in the county of the owner’s residence as part of his personal estate, and not elsewhere for State and County purposes, says “ the present case presents the case whether such stock owned by one whose residence is just outside, but whose business is within the corporate limits, may be taxed for municipal purposes in like manner as if his residence was also in the town. As the place and manner as well as extent*of taxation of its citizens are regulated by the laws of the State, the solution of the question must be found in the proper interpretation to be put upon the clause of the amended charter, and in our opinion is free from all reasonable doubt. The words are direct and positive, that such property as is held by the plain-tiff shall be subject to the burden of municipal taxation.” So here the law which authorizes “ a privilege or license tax” “ on trades, professions, agencies, business operations,” &c., in the town of Winston, is direct and positive. And why should it not be so ?

A non-resident doing business in the town has his business protected and enjoys all the advantages and benefits of police and other regulations that resident business men have, and should be content if the law allows no discrimination against him.

If a livery man or drayman resident in Greensboro should send his omnibus and hacks or drays into the town of Winston and claim and be allowed the privilege of doing business there without payment of taxes, because he was a nonresident, it would be deemed a very unjust discriminatibn bji- the resident livery men and draymen.

We see no error in the ruling of the Court below.

Affirmed.