1906-1908 Ind. Op. Att'y Gen. p. 54
The opinion determines that Senate Bill No. 31 can originate in the state senate, and a license fee is not a tax.
stand how capital stock niay properly be said to be reduced by
a resolution authorizing the issuance of stock ohic/h ncr'er before
I/as
i existence.
(3)
If the plan adopted by this company were permitted, It
would afford an easy method for withdrawing and refunding
common stock to the stockholders, before payment of corporate
debts; since the resolution provides for redemption of the pre-
ferred stock "at such time
and upon such terms and
conditions as the board of directors may prescribe and set forth
in the certificate thereof."
This preferred stock is issued in lieu
of an equal amount of common stock; and, under the terms of
the above resolution, might be redeemed at an early day after
issuance. Though no suggestion of such intention appears in the
present case, it is undesirable that a precedent be established
whiJh1 might, iiu other instances, lead to grave abuses..
I am, therefore,. of the opinion that in order to comply with
sections 5063 and 5058, supra7 a specific resolution should be filed,
showing upon its face that the common stock is to be reduced;
and also a certificate concerning the issuance of preferred stock.
Your second inquiry relates to the proper fee chargeable upon
the preferred stock, under the facts submitted.
While, as above
stated, the result of this transaction may be to create a new body
of preferred stock to the amount of $100,000 par value, yet if
you are convinced that both the reduction of the common and the
creation of the preferred stock constituted parts of one entire
transaction, you will be justified in collectingc for the state a fee
based upon an increase of only $50,000 in the stock of the com-
pany. As no rights of the public, dealing with the company, are
involved in the latter question, but the only parties involved are
the state and the corporation, you may determine the fact whether
there is an increase in stock, looking at the transaction as a whole;
ascertain what increase has occurred, and charge a fee accord-
ingly.
13ILLS-SENATE BILL NO. 31.
January 28, 1907.
To the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
Gentlemen-In answer to your inquiry bearing date January
24, 1907, as to whether Senate Bill No. 31 can properly originate
in the state senate, I beg to advise that in my opinion it can, and
in support of my opinion on the subject of "Rules of Construc-
tion," I cite the following authorities:
Cahill v. State, 36 Ind. App. 507 (76 N. E. 182)
Rushville et al. v. Gas Company et al., 132 Ind. 575;
State v. Brugh, 5 Ind. App. 592;
State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Iolliday et a].,
105 Ind. 216;
State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439;
Bush v. City of Indianapolis, 120 Ind. 476.
And upon the subject "A license fee is not a tax, but a regu-
lation," I cite the following authorities:
Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, pp. 1125, 1142;
Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. 7, p. 223;
Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449;
Ristine v. Clemens, 31 Ind. App. 338;
City of Indianapolis v. Bieler, 138 Ind. 30;
Emerich v. City of Indianapolis, 118 Ind. 279;
McKinney v. Towin of Salem, 77 Ind. 213;
State v. Hudson, 78 Alo. 305 ;
State v. Hipp, 38 Ohio St. 225.
BILLS-SENATE BILL NO. 33
(JURY SHALL CONSIST OF
12 JURORS, OR ANY NUMBER DIVISIBLE BY 4, ETC.)
January 28, 1907.
To the Senate Committee on Judiciary:
Gentlemen-You have referred to me Senate Bill No. 33 pro-
viding that when in civil cases the jury shall consist of twelve
jurors, or any number divisible by four, three-fourths thereof
shall be sufficient to return a verdict: and if such number be not
divisible by four, not less than three-fourths of the jury must
agree upon the verdict. You ask my opinion whether said bill, if
enacted into a law, would be constitutional.
Section 20 of article I of the constitution of the state of In-
diana provides:
"In all civil cases, the right of trial by jury shall re-
main inviolate."
In construing this clause of the constitution the supreme
court has said, in Allen v. Anderson, 57 Ind. 388, 389: