The repeal of the act under which the li cense was granted does not thereby revoke the license ; Boyd v. State, 46 Ala. 329; Him v. State, 1 Ohio St. 15; but an act prohibit ing the business operates at once to revoke the license; Calder v. Kurby, 5 Gray (Mass.) 597.
When the power is exercised by municipal corporations, a license is the requirement, by the municipality, of the payment of a cer tain sum by a person for the privilege of pursuing his profession or calling, whether harmful or innocent, for the general purpose of producing a reliable source of revenue; Tied. Lim. Pol. Pow. 271.
If the occupation is harmful, the sum paid for its prosecution may be said to be a li cense fee ; but if innocent, it is a license tax; City of St. Paul v. Traeger, 25 Minn. 248, 33 Am. Rep. 462; Chilvers v. People, 11 Mich. 49. See Mayor, etc., of City of N. Y. v. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 261; Kip v. Mayor and Alder men of City of Paterson,' 26 N. J. L. 298; Johnson V. Philadelphia, 60 Pa.' 445. Mere taxation of an unlawful business does not legalize it; Palmer v. State, 88 Tenn. 553, 13• S. W. 233, 8 L. R. A. 280. Where the occu pationis not dangerous to the public, either directly or incidentally, it cannot he sub jected to any police regulation which does not fall within the power of taxation; Lim, Pol. Pow. 273. In the regulation of oc cupations harmful to the public, it is consti tutional to require those, who apply for a license to pay a reasonable sum to defray the expense of issuing the license and maintain ing the proper supervision. What is a rea sonable sum must be determined by the facts of each case ; but where it is a plain case of police regulation, the courts are not com pelled to be too exact in determining the expense of regulation and supervision, so long as the sum demanded is altogether unreasonable ; Tied. Lim. Pol. Pow. 274; City of Boston v. Schaffer, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 415'. Welch v. Hotchkiss, 39 Conn. 140, 12 Am.
Rep. 383; Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. 445; Ash v. People, 11 Mich. 347, 83 Am. Dec. 740; City of Burlington v. Ins. Co., 31 Ia. 102.
A. police regulation is not necessarily in valid because in its incidental operations the receipts of the municipality are augmented; Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. 445 ; an or dinance which does not fix a definite fee for the pursuit of any occupation, and permit all persons to engage therein, upon payment of such fee, is invalid; Bills v. Goshen, 117 Ind. 221, 20 N. E. 115, 3 L. R. A. 261.
The fact that the income derived from a license is not directly applied -to payment of the municipal expenses of regulation and •upervision of the business, does not affect the validity of the license, if the amount is not disproportionate to the cost of issuing the license and regulating the business; Lit tlefield v. State, 42 Neb. 223, 60 N. W. 724,
28 L. R. A. 588, 47 Am. St. Rep. 697.
Revenue derived from licensing a harm ful occupation with a view to its partial sup pression, in excess of that required to main thin proper supervision of it, is not a tax, since its primary object is to restrict an oc cupation and not to raise revenue; Young blood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20 Am. Rep. .654; Tenney v. Lenz, 16 Wis. 566.
The cases are said by Tiedeman, Lim. Po lice Power, to be not harmonious as to the grounds justifying a license for all kinds of employment; yet the right to impose a li cense is generally recognized ; City of Boston v. Schaffer, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 415; City of Brooklyn v. Breslin, 57 N. Y. 591; State v. Long Branch Com'rs, 42 N. J. L. 364, 36 Am. Dec. 518; Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. 445; Home Ins. Co. of New York v. City Council of Augusta, 50 Ga. 530; State v. Herod, 29 Ia. 123; City of Cairo v. Bross, 101 Ill. 475. The same author cites the following cases: licensing of hucksters has been held State v. Long Branch Com'rs, 42 N. J. L. 364, 36 Am. Dec. 518; Barling v. West, 29 Wis. 307, 9 Am. Rep. 576; City of St. Paul v. Traeger, 25 Minn. 248, 33 Am. Itep. 462; and a license tax upon lawyers and physicians is held to be reasonable; Ex parte Williams, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 262, 20 S. W. 580, 21 L. R. A. 783; Simmons v. State, 12 Mo. 268, 49 Am. Dec. 131; State v. Gaz lay, 5 Ohio, 21; Mayor, etc., of Savannah v. Charlton, 36 Ga. 460; Young v. Thomas, 17 Fla. 169, 35 Am. Rep. 93; on bakers; Mayor and Aldermen of Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala. 137, 36 Am. Dec. 441; on places of publie amuse ment; Charity Hospital of New Orleans v. Stickney, 2 La. Ann. 550; Germania v. State, 7 Md. 1; on hacks and draymen; City of Brooklyn v.• Breslin, 57 N. Y. 591; City of St. Louis v. Green, 70 Mo. '562; Com. v. Matthews, 122 Mass. 60 ; on peddlers; City of Huntington v. Cheesbro, 57 Ind. 74; Ex Parte Ah Toy, 57 Cal. 92 ; Temple v. Sumner, r 51 Miss. 13, 24 Am. Rep. 615; on the sale of I milk; People v. Mulholland, 82 N. Y. 324, 37 Am. Rep. 568; City of Chicago v. Bartee, 100 Ill. 57; on auctioneers; Wiggins v. City of Chicago, 68 Ill. 372 ; Town of Decorah v. Dunstan Bros., 38 Ia. 96 ; on selling liquor ; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312, 21 Am. Rep. 765 ; Bancroft v. Dumas, 21 Vt. 456; Burck holter v. Village of McConnelsville, 20 Ohio St. 308•; State v. Hudson, 78 Mo. 302; Gun narssohn v. City of Sterling, 92 I11. 569; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20 Am. Rep. 654 ; on street railway cars ; Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. 445; and on book can vassers; 31 Cent. L. J. 3.