Appeal, No. 220, March T., 1957, from judgment of Superior Court, April T., 1956, No. 224, affirming in part and reversing in part judgment of County Court of Allegheny County, at No. A-1360 of 1953, in case of Paper products Company, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh et al. Judgment affirmed.
J. Frank McKenna, Jr., City Solicitor, for City of Pittsburgh, appellant.
Oscar G. Peterson, Assistant Solicitor, with him Mortimer B. Lesher, Solicitor, for School District of Pittsburgh, appellant.
Kim Darragh, for appellee.
E. B. Strassburger, with him E. B. Strassburger, Jr., for intervenor, appellee.
Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Chidsey, Arnold, Jones and Cohen, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BELL
Paper Products Company, Inc. was a dealer or vendor of goods, wares and merchandise. The question involved is whether Paper Products Company was taxable as a "wholesale dealer or vendor" or as a "retail dealer or vendor" in the following transactions - as those terms are used in the Mercantile License Tax Act of June 20, 1947, P.L. 745, § 1, 24 PS § 582.1, et seq., and in Ordinance 488 of 1947 of the City of Pittsburgh (enacted under authority of the Act of June 25, 1947, P.L. 1145, 53 PS § 2015.1-2015.8). The provisions of the statute and of the ordinance are, for present purposes, identical.
The Mercantile License Tax Act, supra, imposed a Mercantile License Tax in School Districts of the first class. Section 1 of said Act provides, inter alia, as follows:
"(2) 'Wholesale dealer' or 'wholesale vendor' shall mean any person who sells to dealers in, or vendors of, goods, wares and merchandise*fn* and to no other persons.
"(3) 'Retail dealer' or 'retail vendor' shall mean any person who is a dealer in, or vendor of, goods, wares and merchandise who is ...