While licenses do not protect the holder from the capture and confiscation of his property by the other belligerent, as regards the state granting them they protect the censee, who, even though an alien, may sue and be sued in respect thereto as a natural , ized subject.
In Pleading. A plea of justification to an action of trespass, that the defendant was authorized by the owner of the freehold to commit the trespass complained of.
A license must be specially pleaded to an action of trespass ; 2 Term 166; but may be given in evidence in an action on the case; 8 Eadt 308. See JUSTIFICATION.
In Governmental Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or busi ness, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful.
A license to carry on a, business or trade is an official permit to carry on the same or perform other acts forbidden by law ex cept to persons obtaining such permit. Hoef ling v. City of San Antonio, 85 Tex. 228, 20 S. W. 85, 16 L. R. A. 608.
A license of this sort is a personal privi lege, and one issued to a partner individual ly does not extend to his co-partner or to the firm ; Long v. State, 27 Ala. 32. It has been held that even the servant of the li censee is not protected by his master's li cense ; Gibson v. Kauffield, 63 Pa. 168 ; Stokes v. Prescott's Adm'r, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 37; its terms cannot be varied or extended by the licensee, although he may do every thing that is necessary and proper for his enjoyment of it; Bell v. Watson, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 328; Wil liams v. Garigues, 30 La. Ann,. 1094; Hen derson v. Com., 78 Va. 488.
In some cases it is held that where a li cense is for the protection of the public and to prevent Improper persons from engaging in a particular business, and the license is for revenue merely, a contract made by an person in violation of an act is void; Bowdre v. Carter, 64 Miss. 221, 1 South. 162,; 4 C. B. N. 5, 405 ; Johnson v. Hulings, 103 Pa. 501, 49 Am. Rep. 131; Hus tis v. Pickands, 27 In. App. 270. An inn keeper who fails to secure a license cannot establish a lien upon the goods of his guest ; Stanwood v. Woodward, 38 Me. 192 ; an at
torney cannot recover for his services ; Ted rick v. Hiner, 61 Ill. 189; or a surgeon; 37 Eng. L. & Eq. 475 ; or a physician; Gardner v. Tatum, 81 Cal. 370, 22 Pac. 880 (where a statute made the failure to procure a license a misdemeanor) ; Puckett v. Alexander, 102 N. C. 95, 8 S. E. 767, 3 L. R. A. 43 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 66. But .the contracts of unlicensed persons have, in some cases, been held valid; Shepler v. Scott, 85 Pa. 329; Brett v. Mar ston, 45 Me. 402.
A license fee is a tax; parish of More house v. Brigham, 41 La. Ann. 665, 6 South. 257; Which a state may impose upon all citizens within its borders ; Charleston v, Oliver, 16 S. C. 47; but it cannot discrimi nate between residents and nonresidents of the state ; Corson v. State, 57 Md. 251 ; or of a city or county ; Ex parte Frank, 52 Cal. 606, 28 Am. Rep. 642 ; Graffty v. City of Rushville, 107 Ind. 502, 8 N. E. 609, 57 Am. Rep. 128. SUbject to this restriction, a li cense tax may be imposed upon particular classes of business men ; County of Galves ton v. Gorham, 49 Tex. 279; Ex parte Robin son, 12 Nev. 263, 28 Am. Rep. 794; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 97 "Ga. 114, 25 S. E. 249, 35 L. R. A. 497; but a fixed and definite li cense fee must be named, which all persons engaged in the business specified shall pay; Bills v. City of Goshen, 117 Ind. 221, 20 N. E. 115, 3 L. R. A. 261. An occupation tax must be levied only as a means of regulation not of revenue ; Littlefield v., State, 42 Neb. 223, 60 N. W. 724, 28 L. R. A. 588, 47 Am. St. Rep. 697.
Where an act authorizes the granting of licenses, but provides that they may be re voked at the pleasure of the authority grant ing them, a license granted under the act is not such a contract between the state and the individual that a revocation of it de prives the licensee of any property, immuni ty, or privilege within the meaning of the constitution ; Com. v. Kinsley, 133 Mass. 579; but in some cases it has been held that a license cannot be revoked without refunding the fee for the unexpired time; Adams v. Hackett, 27 N. H. 289, 59 Am. Dec. 376.