Burt

City of Palm Springs v. Burt

Good Law
1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1449·224 Cal. App. 2d 122·36 Cal. Rptr. 422
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 16, 1964Civ. No. 7158California782 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Coughlin, J.

Defendant and appellant is an attorney at law; was doing business as such in the City of Palm Springs, the plaintiff and respondent, during the fiscal year 1959-1960; and refused to pay a $75 annual license fee imposed by the city’s licensing ordinance for that period. The city brought this action to recover the fee in question and obtained judgment against the defendant for the amount thereof, together with a prescribed penalty, from which he has appealed.

*124 The subject ordinance was enacted as a revenue measure pursuant to section 37101 of the Government Code. The license fees paid thereunder, along with other taxes, become a part of the general fund. (See Gov. Code, §§41031, 43100, 43400, 43401.) From this fund the city pays its general expenses, including the cost of maintaining a public golf course.

The defendant contends that the maintenance of a public golf course is a nonmunieipal purpose; the taxing power conferred upon a city may be used only for a municipal purpose (Rancho Santa Anita, Inc. v. City of Arcadia, 20 Cal.2d 319, 323 [ 125 P.2d 475 ]; City of Redwood City v. Myers, 7 Cal.2d 283, 293 [ 60 P.2d 291 , 108 A.L.R. 727 ]) ; and the ordinance in question is an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.