Opinion by
The city brought this action of assumpsit against the defendants as surviving sureties on the official bond of Frederick Sheffield, as treasurer of the city. Sheffield had died after the completion of his official term and retirement from office, before the action was brought. There was a verdict for plaintiff, but the court below subsequently entered judgment in favor of the defendants, non obstante veredicto, and the city appeals.
The Act of May 23, 1889, P. L. 277, entitled, “An act providing for the incorporation and government of cities of the third class,” in art. V, sec. 1, clause IV, empowered said cities “To levy and collect, for general revenue purposes, a license tax not exceeding one hundred dollars each, annually,” upon those engaged in certain occupations within the city, “and to regulate the collection of the same.” This clause of the act of 1889 was, by the Act of May 16, 1901, P. L. 224, amended, by striking out the words “for general revenue purposes,” so that the words which confer the power now stand, “To levy and collect a license tax, not exceeding one hundred dollars each, annually, on all auctioneers,” etc. The appellant contends, upon the authority of Oil City v. Trust Co., 151 Pa. 454, that “the license tax” which such cities are now empowered to levy and collect is not a tax for general revenue purposes, but a charge under
The city had, prior to the election of Sheffield as city treasurer, duly passed an ordinance exercising the power conferred upon it to levy and regulate the collection of a “license tax, annually,” on the occupations specified, in accordance with the provisions of the act of 1889, as amended by the act of 1901, above quoted. That ordinance required the “license tax” to be assessed, in the first instance, by a “license tax officer,” from whose assessment an appeal was provided for to the “Board of Revision and Appeals,” and the action of that board upon such appeals was duly regulated. The ordinance required the board of appeals to certify the corrected list of the assessment to the city treasurer, prior to the first day of June in each year, and required that officer to collect the license taxes so assessed and give receipts therefor to the persons paying.
The statutes authorized the city to levy these license taxes and provide for their collection. The ordinance was a proper exercise of the power thus conferred and required the board of revision and appeals to certify the assessment, when corrected, to the treasurer and made it the duty of the treasurer to collect. Sheffield being the treasurer, duly collected these license taxes, and the question is whether he was entitled to compensation for so collecting them. There is no question here as to whether the city had the lawful right to levy and collect these taxes, the collection must be assumed to have been lawful. Nor is it necessary to inquire whether the right to exact the tax is referable to the power of the city to raise revenue for the general purposes of government, or is only sustainable under the police power. The rights of the parties to this action depend entirely upon the provisions of the Act of June 20,1901, P. L. 578, which imposed upon treasurers of cities of the third class, thereafter elected, the duty of collecting all the city, school and poor taxes,
The judgment is affirmed.