CORSON
v.
MARYLAND
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A New York resident was indicted under a Maryland statute requiring all persons except growers and manufacturers to obtain a license before selling goods within the state, based on his selling by sample in Baltimore without such a license. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment upholding the statute's constitutionality, holding that the licensing requirement, which imposed a charge on non-residents measured by their total capacity to do business nationwide rather than their actual business in Maryland, constituted an unconstitutional tax on interstate commerce.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court.
This case does not differ materially from that’ of Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby County, just decided. The Code of Maryland, as amended in 1880, provides that “ no person or corporation other than the_ grower, maker, or manufacturer shall-barter or sell, or otherwise dispose of, or shall' offer for sale any goods, chattels, wares, or merchandise within this state, without first obtaining a license in the manner herein, prescribed.” A violation of this law .was made an indictable offence; and the plaintiff in error, a citizen and resident of New York, was indicted for offering to sell, and for selling by sample, in the city of Baltimore, ivithout license, certain goods for a New York firm, to be shipped from New York directly, to. the purchaser. The plaintiff in error demurred to the indictment, but it was sustained both by the court of original jurisdiction and by the Court of Appeals of Maryland On writ of error. The constitutionality of the law was duly raised, and the law was sustained. The same principles apply to this case which were considered in that of Robbins, and the same result must be declared.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is reversed, and the plaintiff in error must be discharged.
Mr. Chief Justice "Waite concurring.
Mr. Justice Field, Mr. Justice Gray, and myself agree to this judgment, but on different grounds from those stated "in the opinion of the court, It is not denied tliat the statute of Maryland requires a non-resident merchant desiring to sell by sample in that state, to pay for a license to do that business a sum to be ascertained by the amount of his stock in trade in the state where he resides, and in* which he has his principal place of business. This differs materially from the statute of Tennessee, which was considered in Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby County, just decided, and is in its effect, as we think, a tax on commerce among the states. The charge for the privilege to the non-resident is measured by his capacity for doing business ah over the United States,-and without any reference to the amount done or to be done in Maryland.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Galveston v. State of Tex., 210 U.S. 217 (U.S. 1908)
-
Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1888)
-
McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1940)…to House Canvasser in Interstate Commerce, 60 Am. L. Rev. 641. The court was cognizant of this trend, see Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489, 498. Following this decision 19 such taxes were declared invalid. Carson v. Maryland, 120 U. S. 502; Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289; Stockard v. Morgan, 185 U. S. 27; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622; Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389; Rogers v. Arkansas, 227 U…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence