CARSTAIRS
v.
COCHRAN

U.S. | 1904-02-23
No. 122
193 U.S. 10 Supreme Court of the United States (1904) Caution
Also reported at: 48 L. Ed. 596 · 24 S. Ct. 318 · 1904 U.S. LEXIS 976 · SCDB 1903-198
Cited by 31 cases

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.

Synopsis

Maryland's taxation of distilled spirits stored in bonded warehouses did not violate the Constitution or exceed state power, as the state has the undoubted authority to tax private property within its territorial limits regardless of federal warehouse legislation or contractual arrangements between warehouse proprietors and those storing goods. The Supreme Court affirmed the Maryland Court of Appeals' judgment upholding the state's power to require those in possession of tangible personal property to pay taxes thereon.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. J ustice Brewer

Mr. J ustice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court;

That the statutes in question do not conflict with the Constitution of Maryland is settled by the decision of its highest court. Merchants' Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, and cases cited; Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., 169 U. S. 557, 566; Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198, 200.

A State has the undoubted power to tax private property having a situs within its territorial limits, and may require the-party in possession of the property to pay the taxes thereon.

“ Unless restrained by provisions of the Federal Constitution, the power of the State as to the mode, form and extent of taxation is unlimited, where the subjects to which it applies are within her jurisdiction.” State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 319; “ Statutes sometimes provide that tangible personal property shall be assessed wherever in the State it may be, either to the owner himself or to the agent or other person having it in charge; and there is.no doubpof the right to’do this, whether the owner is resident in the State or not.” 1-Cooley on Taxation, 3d ed., p. 653. See also Coc v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517; Marye v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 127 U. S. 117, 123; Pullman's Car Company v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18; Ficklin v. Shelby County, 145 U. S. 1, 22; Savings Society v. Multnomah County, 169 U. S. 421, 427; New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U. S. 309; Board of Assessors v. Comptoir National, 191 U. S. 388; National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; Merchants' Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461.

That under Federal legislation distilled spirits may be left in a warehouse for several years, that there is no specific provision in the statutes in question giving to the proprietor who pays the taxes a right to recover interest thereon, and that for spirits so in bond negotiable warehouse receipts have been is sued, do not affect the question of the power of the State.. The State.is under na obligation to make its legislation conformable to the contracts which the proprietors of bonded warehouses may make with those who store spirits therein, but it is their business, if they wish further protection than the lien given by the statute, to make their contracts accordingly.

We see no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and it is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

  • Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1916)
  • Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1923)
    …statute in question did not contravene this provision of the constitution of that State. The question whether or not a state statute conflicts with the constitution of the State is settled by the decision of its highest court. Carstairs v. Cochran, 193 U. S. 10, 16. This Court “ is without authority to review and revise the construction affixed .to a' state statute as to a state matter by the court of last resort of the State ”. Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Commission, 255 U. S. 445, 448, and cases cite…
  • Hannis Distilling Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285 (U.S. 1910)
    …an- elaborate consideration of all the contentions the conclusions reached in the Monticello case -were .adhered-to and the constitutionality of the statute .imposing the tax was reaffirmed.' The case was brought to this court (Carstairs v. Cochran, 193 U. S. 10) and the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States was elaborately ' pressed. Preliminarily to a . consideration of the Federal questions which were presented for decision the court at the [*292] outset declared (p. 10) “tha…

Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (41 total)

View all 41 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw