« ForrigeFortsett »
that the homestead shall be for the exclusive strictly private business is not invalid be benefit of the homesteader. Section 2290 of cause a portion of its business is the importathe Revised Statutes provides that a person
tion and sale of articles in original package. applying for the entry of a homestead" claim shall make affidavit that, among other
(No. 21.) things, “such application is made for his ex. Argued April 20, 21, 1898. Decided Octo clusive use anu benefit, and that his entry
ber 31, 1898. is made for the purpose of actual settlement
N to person. And section 2291, which prescribes of that court entered in pursuance of the dethe time and manner of final proof, requires cision of the Court of Appeals of that state that the applicant make 'affidavit that no part of such land has been alienated, except the comptroller's assessment of and tax upon
quashing a writ of certiorari and confirming (668]*as provided in section twenty-two hundred
and eighty-eight, which section provides for the capital employed within the state, owned
of Michigan. Affirmed.
See saine case below, 91 Hun, 158, 149 N.
Statement by Mr. Justice Shiras: poses. It is true that the sections contain
*Parke, Davis, & Company in the name of[659) no express prohibition of alienation, and no forfeiture in case of alienation; yet under the state of Michigan for the manufacture and
a corporation organized under the laws of them the homestead right cannot be per- sale of chemical and pharmaceutical prepa. fected in case of alienation, or contract for rations. The factory is situated in the city alienation, without perjury by the home of Detroit. The corporation has a warehouse steader.
There can be no question and depot in the city of New York, and there that this contract contemplated perjury, on keeps on hand varying quantities of its man: the part of Anderson, and was designed to ufactured products, which are there sold at thwart the policy of the government in the wholesale in original packages. The concern homestead laws, to secure for the benefit of is represented in New York by John Clay as the homesteader the exclusive benefit of his homestead right."
manager, who is paid a salary.
ness of selling the manufactured articles is
name, but for the use of the company, im-
the port of New York. Such crude drugs
for use, but some portions are sold in the
ex rel. PARKE, DAVIS, & COMPANY, The corporation pays an annual rental for
its place of business in New York of $12,500,
employs there a force of over fifty persons, JAMES A. ROBERTS, Comptroller of the and expended for the New York branch an.
nually, for the years 1890 to 1894, inclusive, State of New York.
from $102,000 to $172,000. The property (See 8. C. Reporter's ed. 658–683.)
owned in New York, in the way of business
fixtures, is valued at $15,000; the average
ried in New York during those years was
during that period a continuing capital,
nied to a foreign corporation which manu- of from $23,000 to $62,000 per year.
Upon this state of facts the comptroller of
the provisions of the statute here drawn in
capital employed in a state and subject to 542, § 3, as amended by Laws 1881, chap.
“Every corporation, joint-stock company,
or association whatever, now or hereafter in. court. 4. A franchise or business tax on the amount
or pursuant to law in this state or in any 0! capital stock employed within the state by other state or country, and doing business in a foreign corporation organized to conduct 'this state, except only savings banks and in
stitutions for savings, life insurance com- Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123, 26 L. ed. panies, banks, foreign insurance companies, 103: Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 29 manufacturing or mining corporations or L. ed. 691 ; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, companies wholly engaged in carrying on 23 L. ed. 347; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. manufacture or mining ores within this state, S. 313, 34 L. ed. 455, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. and agricultural and horticultural societies 185; Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78, 34 or associations, which exceptions, however, L. ed. 862, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 485; Voight shall not include gas companies, trust com- v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62, 35 L. ed. 638; Pospanies, electric or steam heating, lighting, tal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 689, and power companies, shall be liable to and 39 L. ed. 312, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 1. shall pay a tax as a tax upon its franchise Taxation upon the "franchises or business" or business into the state treasury annually, of importing goods and once selling them is to be computed as follows."
a power unequivocally surrendered by the Then come provisions grading the tax ac- states to the Federal government. cording to annual dividends. The tax orig. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L inally fell upon the entire capital of a cor. ed. 678. poration, but the statute was amended in The tax upon the franchise or business of 1885 so as to read:
selling their own goods in New York, im. "The amount of capital stock which shall posed upon the relators, is unconstitutional be the basis for tax under the provisions of in the absence of permission from Congress. section three (supra) in the case of every Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 34 L. ed. corporation, joint-stock company, and asso-128, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 36; Robbins v. Shel. ciation liable to taxation thereunder, shall by County Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 489, 30 be the amount of capital stock employed L. ed. 694, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 45; Cooper within this state.”
Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727, 28 L. Parke, Davis, & Company, through their ed. 1137. said manager, filed a petition in the New The tax here in question cannot be mainYork supreme court, praying for a writ of tained as one imposed to reimburse the state certiorari directed to the comptroller, in or for any police supervision over foreign cor. der to subject his assessment to correction. porations there selling their own goods. In the petition it was alleged that the only Charlotte, C. & A. Ř. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. capital in any proper sense employed by the s. 386, 35 L. ed. 1051. company within the state of New York in
Where exemptions are so incorporated in the sale of its products was its leasehold of a tax law as to result in unconstitutional dig. the warehouse and the office furniture and crimination the whole law falls. fixtures, not exceeding in value $15,000; that Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90, 95, 30 said company, being a manufacturing cor. L. ed. 115, 117; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. poration, was exempt from taxation under S. 356, 30 L. ed. 220. the laws of the state of New York; that the Messrs. Theodore E. Hancock, Attor.
comptroller erred in deciding that goods ney General of New York, and William Hen (661]manufactured *by said corporation and ry Dennis, for defendant in error:
stored at its depot in New York are capital It is not sufficient to show that a Federal employed in said state within the meaning of question might have arisen or been applicathe statute; that if said statute was cor- ble to the case, unless it is further shown on rectly interpreted by the comptroller, then the record that it did arise and was applied said statute was unconstitutional and void by the state court to the case. as in contravention of the Constitution of
Hagar v. California, 154 U. S. 639, 24 the United States and the amendments there. L. ed. 1044; Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 368,
9 L. ed. 458; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. To the certiorari granted upon said peti. 532, 22 L. ed. 487; Ocean Ins. Co. v. Polleys, tion the comptroller duly made a return, al. 13 Pet. 157, 10 L. ed. 105; Walker v. Vilaleging that his acts and proceedings were vaso, 6 Wall. 124, 18 L, ed. 853; Rector v. valid.
Ashley, 6 Wall. 142, 18 L. ed. 733; Gibson v. The cause was heard at the December term, Chouteau, 8 Wall. 314, 19 L. ed. 317; Phoenia 1895, of said court, and judgment was en: Ins. Co. v. The Treasurer, 11 Wall. 204, 20 tered quashing the writ of certiorari, and L. ed. 112; Otis v. Oregon 8. 8. Co. 116 V. 8. confirming the comptroller's assessment. 548, 29 L. ed. 719. From that judgment an appeal was taken to the court of appeals of the state of New York, taken as conclusive as to the facts.
The return of the comptroller must be and on June 9, 1896, the cause was heard, the order and judgment of the supreme court
People, Sims, v. Nero York Fire Comrs. 73 were affirmed, and the record remitted to the N. Y. 437; People, Roebling's sons Co. v. supreme court. 91 Hun, 158, 149 N. Y. 608. Wemple, 138 N. Y. 582; People, Press Pub.
Whereupon the cause was brought to this Co., v. Martin, 142 N. Y. 228. court by a writ of error duly prayed for and The tax, although upon the franchise or allowed.
business of a corporation, is measured by the
amount of its capital employed in the state. Dr. James McKeen, for plaintiff in
Horn Silver Min. Co. v. New York, 143 U.
S. 305, 36 L, ed. 164, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 57 ; The New York statute imposes a discrimin Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 119 U. S. 129, ating tax upon these relators for selling in 30 L. ed. 350. New York, in the original packages, their Taxation is measured by the amount of products made in Michigan.
capital employed in the state.
People, Seth Thomas Clock Co., v. Wemple, the state; that such a tax is an unjust dig. 133 N. Y. 323.
crimination against this corporation, whose The statute is not an infringement of the place of manufacture is in the state of Michinterstate commerce clause of the Federal igan. By this contention it is not meant, Constitution.
of course, that this particular corporation is, People, American Contracting & D. Co., v. in terms, discriminated against in the New Wemple, 129 N. Y. 558; Woodruff v. Par: York statute, but that all corporations which ham, 8 Wall. 136, 19 L. ed. 386; Postal manufacture their goods wholly in other Teleg. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 39 states and send them for sale in New York L. ed. 311, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 1; Pembina are discriminated against in favor of such Consol. Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsylva- corporations, whether foreign or domestic, as nia, 125 U. S. 181, 31 L. ed. 650, 2 Inters. manufacture their goods within the state of Com. Rep. 24; People, Southern Cotton Oil New York. Co., v. Wemple, 131 N. Y. 64.
To sustain this contention the well-known Á corporation, whether domestic or for. line of cases is cited, wherein this court has eign, cannot claim exemption because of do had to deal with state legislation imposing ing a manufacturing business outside of the discriminating taxes against the produets of state of New York.
other states. Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. People, Tiffany, v. Campbell, 144 N. Y. S. 446 [29: 691]; Robbins v. Shelby County 166; People, "Western Electric Co., v. Camp- Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 489 [30: 604); Minbell, 145 N. Y. 587; Horn Silver Min. Co. v. nesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313 (34: 455, 3 New York, 143 U. S. 305, 36 L. ed. 164, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 185). Inters. Com. Rep. 57; Southern Cotton Oil If the object of the law in question was to Co. v. Wemple, 44 Fed. Rep. 24.
impose a tax upon products of other states A state may discriminato in favor of do- while exempting similar domestic goods from mestic as against foreign corporations, and taxation, there might be room to contend may require a franchise or business tax from that such a distinction was constitutionally the latter as a condition of being allowed objectionable as tending to affect or regulate to do business within the state.
commerce between the states. But we think Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410, 19 L. ed. that, obviously, such is not the purpose of 972; Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. this legislation. “Every corporativn, joint727, 28 L. ed. 1137; People v. Formosa, 131 stock company or association whatever, now N. Y. 478; Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y. or hereafter incorporated, organized or 205, 13 L. R. A. 854; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. formed under, by or pursuant to law in this S. 437, 38 L. ed. 774, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. state or in any other state or country and[663) 664; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. doing business in this state
shall be 404, 21 L. ed. 451.
liable to and shall pay a tax as a tax upon
its franchise or business into the state treas. (661) *Mr. Justice Shiras delivered the opinion ury annually, to be computed as follows." of the court:
It will be perceived that the tax is pre The construction put upon the statute of scribed as well for New York corporations as the state of New York by its courts is, of for those of cther states. It is true that course, binding upon this court, and that por- manufacturing or mining corporations wholtion of the contention which questioned the ly engaged in carrying on manufacture or action of the comptroller on the ground of a mining ores within the state of New York misinterpretation of the law is thus disposed are cxempte-l from this tax; but such exof.
emption is not restricted to New York corIt must be regarded as finally settled by porations, hut includes corporations of other frequent decisions of this court that, subject states as well, when wholly engaged in manto certain limitations as respects interstate ufacturing within the state. and foreign commerce, a state may impose
In construing this statute it was held in such conditions upon permitting a foreign the case of People, Blackinton Co., v. Rob(662]corporation to do business within its limits erts, 4 App. Div. 388, that a New York cor
as it may judge expedient; and that it may poration which carried on a manufacturing make the grant or privilege dependent upon business in another state was liable to this the payment of a specific license tax, or a tax; and this decision was affirmed by the sum proportioned to the amount of its capi- New York court of appeals. 151 N. Y. 652. tal used within the state. Paul v. Virginia, The tax is graded according to annual div. 8 Wall. 168 [19: 357]; Horn Silver Mining idends, and originally was assessed upon the Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305 [36:164, 4 entire capital of a corporation; but the statInters. Com. Rep. 57).
ute was amended in 1885 so as to read: "The Accordingly the counsel for the plaintiff in amount of capital stock which shall be the error disavows in his brief any wish to bring basis for tax under the provisions of section those decisions into further review, but his three, in the case of every corporation, jointcontention is that this Michigan corporation, stock company, and association liable to tax. having come within the jurisdiction of New ation thereunder, shall be the amount of York by compliance with all the provisions capital stock employed within this state.” of law imposing conditions for transacting So that it is apparent that there is no business within the state, is denied the equal purpose disclosed in the statute either to protection of the law when subjected to a distinguish between New York corporations tax from which are exempted other corpora- and those of other states to the detriment of tions, foreign and domestic, which wholly the latter, or to subject property out of the manufacture the same class of goods within state to taxation.
In the present case, indeed, complaint is | ters. Com. Rep. 595); Adams Erpress Co. v. made of the action of the comptroller in de Ohio, 165 U. S. 194 [41: 683]. It is not termining the "amount of the capital stock necessary in this case to enter into a subject employed within the state,”-that the so difficult, but the cases are referred to as amount fixed by him was too large. The ac- showing the distinction between corporations tion of the comptroller was subject to revi. organized to carry on interstate commerce, sion, and the corporation's complaints in re- and having a quasi-public character, and spect thereto were heard and passed upon by corporations organized to conduct strictly the supreme court of New York. The esti- private business. mate of the comptroller, in determining the The corporation concerned in the present
amount of capital employed in the state, litigation is of the latter character, and the (664]would not be judicially *interfered with un- case comes within the doetrine of Paul v.
less it was clearly shown that the same was Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 [19: 357], and of suberroneous; ard, even then, such errors would sequent cases affirming that one. Horn Silnot present a Federal question for our con- ver Mining Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305 sideration.
[36: 164, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 57), may be Nor can we consider the further conten- specially mentioned, as it involved a similar tion that portions of the business which were question and the same statute which are bemade the basis of the assessment were im- fore us in the present case. The Horn Silver properly treated as business of the corpora Mining Company was a corporation of the tion, whereas they should have been regarded territory of Utah, where it carried on a minas pertaining to the personal transactions of ing and manufacturing business. It also Mr. Clay, the company's agent. The true carried on business in the state of New York, relation of Mr. Clay to the corporation's and was there subjected to an annual tax business was olie of fact, in respeci to which upon its corporate franchise or business, as a hearing was afforded to the corporation, prescribed in the statute of the state of New and this court is in no position to enter into York. The company refusing to pay the such an inquiry.
tax, proceedings to enforce its payment were Again, it is said that, even assuming that resorted to, which resulted in the case being the importation of crude drugs and their sale brought to this court, where some of the in the original packages constituted a por questions raised in the present case were contion of the corporate business, no tax could sidered and determined. The conclusions be imposed by the state under the doctrine reached were that the law in question did not of Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 [6: | tax property not within the state, nor regu678].
late interstate commerce, nor deny to the But that case is inapplicable. Here no tax corporation the equal protection of the laws, is sought to be imposed directly on imported nor impose a tax beyond the constitutional articles or on their sale. This is a tax im- power of the state. posed on the business of a corporation, con:
It is said that the operation of that porsisting in the storage and distribution of tion of this taxing law, which exempts from various kinds of goods, some products of a business tax corporations which are wholly their own manufacture and some imported engaged in manufacturing within the state articles. From the very nature of the tax, of New York, is to encourage manufacturing being laid as a tax upon the franchise of do- corporations wleich seek to do business in ing business as a corporation, it cannot be that state to bring their plants into New affected in any way by the character of the York. Such may be the tendency of the leg. property in which its capital stock is in. islation, but so long as the privilege is not vested. Society for Savings v. Coite, o Wall. restricted to New York corporations, it is(666) 594 [18: 897]; Provident Institution for not perceived that thereby any ground is af. Savings v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 611 [18: forded to justify the intervention of the Fed907]; Pembina Consol. Silver Mining & Mill. eral courts. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181 [31:650, The judgment of the Supreme Court of 2 Iuters. Com. Rep. 24); Home Insurance Co. the State of New York is accordingly af. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594 [33: 1025]. firmed.
When a corporation of one state, whose business is that of a common carrier, trans- Mr. Justice White was not present at the acts part of that business in other states, argument, and took no part in the decision diffic questions have arisen, and this court of the case. has been called upon to decide whether certain taxing laws of the respective states in- Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting: fringe upon the freedom of interstate com- It seems to me that the opinion and judg. merce. It has been found difficult to pre- ment in this case are not in harmony with scribe a satisfactory rule whereby the pub- former decisions of this court. lic burdens of taxation can be justly appor. The comptroller of New York has imposed tioned between the business and agencies of upon the plaintiff in error, a Michigan core
such a corporation in different ztates and the poration doing business in New York, an ansubject has been much *discussed in several nual tax for the year 1894 and the preceding
Western U. Teleg. Co. v. five years, upon the sum of $90,000"as capiAtty. Gen. of Massachusetts, 125 U. S. tal employed” in the latter state. The au. 530 [31: 790); Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, C. & thority for this tax was found in a statute St. L. R. W. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421 of New York providing that "every corpora[38: 1031); Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. tion, joint-stock company, or association Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18 [35: 613, 3 In- whatever, now or hereafter incorporated, or.
ganized, or formed under, by, or pursuant to | Lott, 8 Wall. 148, 150 [19: 387, 388], was
The goods sold by the plaintiff in error, the state, or by retail in smaller quantities, by its agents in New York, are manufactured would be subject to a heavy tax, while the in the state of Michigan. If the plaintiff same class of liquors manufactured in the had been wholly engaged in carrying on man- state would escape the tax. It is obvious ufacture in New York it would have been that the right to impose any such discrimiexempied by the statute from the taxes in nating tax, if it exist at all, cannot be limquestion.
ited in amount, and that a tax under the So that the question in this case is, same authority can as readily be laid which whether it is competent for New York to would amount to an absolute prohibition to
impose a tax upon the franchise or business sell liquors introduced from without, while (667)*of manufacturing corporations or companies, the privilege would remain unobstructed in
foreign or domestic, not "wholly engaged” in regard to articles made in the state. If this
course in her commercial relations with all Is not such legislation an injurious dis. the other states of the Union.” Again: crimination against the manufacturing busi- “But while the case has been argued here ness and the manufactured goods of other with a principal reference to the supposed states, in favor of the manufacturing busi- prohibition against taxing imports, it is to ness and the manufactured goods of New be seen from the opinion of the supreme York, which is forbidden by the Constitution court of Alabama delivered in this case, that of the United States ?
see. The the clause of the Constitution which gives question presented for consideration is of to Congress the right to regulate commerce such importance as to justify an extended among the states was supposed to present a reference to our former decisions.
serious objection to the validity of the AlaIn Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, 140 bama statute. Nor can it be doubted that [19: 382, 387], it was contended that a pro. a tax which so seriously affects the intervision in the charter of the city of Mobile, change of commodities between the states Alabama, authorizing the collection of a tax as to essentially impede or seriously interon sales at auction, was invalid in its appli- fere with it is a regulation of commerce. And
cation to auctioneers who sold in that state it is also true, as conceded in that opinion, 1 in the original packages goods and mer. that Congress has the same right to regulate
chandise tl.e product of states other than commerce among the states inat it has to
amounting, as we have seen, to a total aboAt the same term of the court Hinson v. 'lition of all commercial intercourse between