
    EARLY & DANIEL CO v CINCINNATI (city)
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
    No 4766.
    Decided Oct 14, 1935
    Hunt, Bennett & Utter, Cincinnati, for plaintiff in error.
    John D. Ellis, City Solicitor, Cincinnati, and Leonard S. Shore, Assistant City Solicitor, Cincinnati, for defendant in error,.
   OPINION

By HAMILTON, J.

That the tax was illegal was determined in the case of Hanke Bros, et v City of Cincinnati, No. 4031, Court of Appeals, Hamilton County, affirmed by a divided court in 125 Oh St, 639. The trial court was correct in holding the tax was illegal.

It is contended by plaintiff in error that §12075, GC, is not applicable, that that section refers only to general taxation and not to special taxes, such as occupational tax. There is nothing in the section to .indicate such a classification. It provides for the recovery of back taxes illegally assessed. That the occupational tax is a tax has never been questioned. It is not a license. It is a levy of taxes for the general purposes of the city. The statute applies, and the trial court was correct in so holding.

The trial court did, however, improperly allow interest on the amount awarded as liot barred by the statute of limitations. See: City of Cincinnati v Cincinnati Street Ry. Co., 45 Oh Ap, 511, (15 Abs 347). The amount of interest awarded was $29.50. The judgment of the trial court will, therefore be modified by reducing the final judgment from $206.55 to $177.05, and, as modified, will be affirmed.

ROSS/ PJ, and MATTHEWS, J, concur.  