Source or prior law:

L. 1862, ch. 46, art. 2, § 1, ¶ 4; L. 1864, ch. 69, § 2, ¶ 4; L. 1867, ch. 70, § 1, ¶ 4; G.S. 1868, ch. 18, § 15, ¶ 5; L. 1869, ch. 24, § 1, ¶ 5; L. 1870, ch. 47, § 1, ¶ 6; L. 1874, ch. 46, § 13, ¶ 2; L. 1879, ch. 82, § 2, ¶ 2; L. 1881, ch. 37, § 11, ¶ 3; L. 1883, ch. 34, § 1, ¶ 3; L. 1887, ch. 99, § 3, ¶ 3.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Power to levy license tax on insurance companies considered. City of Leavenworth v. Booth, 15 Kan. 627.

2. Power to tax insurance companies not repealed by insurance act. City of Leavenworth v. Booth, 15 Kan. 627.

3. Levy of tax upon express company considered; city ordinance construed. City of Leavenworth v. Smith, 5 Kan. App. 165, 167, 48 P. 924.

4. Discretion of city as to kinds of business taxed considered. City of Leavenworth v. Smith, 5 Kan. App. 165, 167, 48 P. 924.

5. Complaint quashed; city cannot appeal directly to the supreme court. City of Leavenworth v. Weaver, 26 Kan. 392.

6. Telephone company license tax not invalid as matter of law. In re Chipchase, Petitioner, 56 Kan. 357, 360, 43 P. 264.

7. Extent to which city may regulate pawnbrokers considered. City of Kansas City v. Garnier, 57 Kan. 412, 415, 46 P. 707.

8. License tax based upon value of stock or capital valid. In re Martin, 62 Kan. 638, 64 P. 43.

9. Ordinance levying license tax construed; "all other retailers" defined. Miller v. Demory, 64 Kan. 584, 67 P. 1105.

10. Amount of license tax held to be question for city. Kansas City v. Overton, 68 Kan. 560, 75 P. 549.

11. Ordinance not invalid because producers of products exempted. Kansas City v. Overton, 68 Kan. 560, 75 P. 549.

12. License tax on hucksters and hawkers held valid. Kansas City v. Overton, 68 Kan. 560, 75 P. 549.

13. Section cited in defining ''railroad" and "street railway." The State v. Cain, 69 Kan. 186, 189, 76 P. 443.

14. Statute and ordinance thereunder, licensing express companies, both held valid. Leavenworth v. Ewing, 80 Kan. 58, 101 P. 664. Affirmed: Ewing v. City of Leavenworth, 226 U.S. 464, 33 S. Ct. 157, 57 L. Ed. 303.

15. Tax on vehicles carrying passengers, although practically prohibitive, held valid. Desser v. City of Wichita, 96 Kan. 820, 822, 153 P. 1194.

16. Benefit to street railway company does not render tax invalid. Desser v. City of Wichita, 96 Kan. 820, 822, 153 P. 1194.

17. Power of city considered; when courts will interfere discussed. Desser v. City of Wichita, 96 Kan. 820, 153 P. 1194.

18. Power of city to regulate transportation of intoxicating liquors considered. Kansas City v. Jordan, 99 Kan. 814, 817, 819, 163 P. 188.

19. License granted to one, denied to another; ordinance held valid. Mader v. City of Topeka, 106 Kan. 867, 869, 189 P. 969.

20. Taxicab stands in front of private property; consent; license tax. Mader v. City of Topeka, 106 Kan. 867, 869, 189 P. 969.

21. Railway company may grant exclusive privilege to one taxicab owner. Mader v. City of Topeka, 106 Kan. 867, 869, 189 P. 969.

22. Pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers; authority of city to regulate considered. City of Wichita v. Wolkow, 110 Kan. 127, 202 P. 637.

23. Pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers; register and report required; ordinance valid. City of Wichita v. Wolkow, 110 Kan. 127, 202 P. 632.

24. Ordinance levying license tax on express companies held valid. Topeka v. Jones, 74 Kan. 164, 165, 86 P. 162.

25. Section does not authorize occupation-tax ordinance nor occupation tax for revenue. McKay v. City of Wichita, 135 Kan. 678, 680, 11 P.2d 733.

26. City has power to license and regulate taxicabs by ordinance. Peoples Taxicab Co. v. City of Wichita, 140 Kan. 129, 133, 34 P.2d 545.

27. City has power to license taxicabs; ordinance held valid. City of Wichita v. Home Cab Co., 141 Kan. 697, 700, 42 P.2d 972.

28. Doubtful if section authorizes regulation of venders of farm produce. Stone v. City of Wichita, 145 Kan. 377, 379, 65 P.2d 595.

29. City has implied power to pass ordinance changing name of streets. Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974, 978, 74 P.2d 142.

30. City ordinance licensing only operators of four or more vending machines invalid; arbitrary classification. Matheny v. City of Hutchinson, 154 Kan. 682, 684, 685, 121 P.2d 227.

31. Ordinance taxing vending machines held license tax not occupation tax. Matheny v. City of Hutchinson, 154 Kan. 682, 683, 684, 685, 121 P.2d 227.

32. City may repeal ordinance licensing theaters. Stovall v. City of Topeka, 166 Kan. 35, 36, 199 P.2d 516.