LOCOMOBILE COMPANY OF AMERICA
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
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.
The Supreme Court invalidated a Massachusetts excise tax on a West Virginia manufacturing corporation's capital stock, holding that the tax was indistinguishable from previously struck-down state taxes on interstate commerce and violated constitutional protections against discriminatory state taxation of corporations engaged primarily in interstate business.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court.
An excise tax of $1,300 imposed on a West Virginia corporation for doing a local business in Massachusetts during the year 1915 is here in question. The state court sustained it. 228 Massachusetts, 117. The corporation is engaged in manufacturing in Connecticut and sells its manufactured articles extensively in interstate commerce. It does both an interstate and a local business in Massachusetts. Each is of considerable volume, but the inter state is much the larger, although this is not material. The tax is of a designated per cent, of the entire authorized capital, and was imposed after the maximum limit named in St. 1909, c. 490, Part III, § 56, was removed by St. 1914, c. 724, § 1. As thus changed the statute is in its essence and practical operation indistinguishable from those adjudged invalid in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1; Pullman Company v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56; Ludwig v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 216 U. S. 146, and Looney v. Crane Company, 245 U. S. 178. This we have just decided in International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, arde, 135.
Judgment reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Francis, 76 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1918)…an, 90 [*334] Kan. 814, 163 Pac. Rep. 188, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 273; O’Rear v. State, Ala. App. , 72 South. Rep. 505; State v. Sixo, 77 W. Va. 243, 87 S. E. Rep. 267; 219 Fed. Rep. 794; 165 Pac. Rep. 1177; 194 U. S. 445; 232 U. S. 700; 34 Fla. 440, 448; 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298; 210 Fed. Rep. 378; 169 Pac. 172; 198 S. W. 77; 93 S. E. Rep. 198; 167 Pac. Rep. 940, 205 S. W. (Rep. (Tenn.) 423. The rule enacted in Section 14 of Chapter 7284 would give effect to the provisions contained in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Act, ev…
-
Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1937)…to have been paid to the defendant, the Treasurer of Massachusetts, under duress and in obedience to statutes held by this Court to be unconstitutional in International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 135, and Locomobile Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 146. A statute of Massachusetts provided that any corporation aggrieved by the exaction of the tax could apply by petition to the Supreme Judicial Court and that the remedy so provided should be exclusive. As the statute contained a provision for repaym…
-
Burrill v. Locomobile Co., 258 U.S. 34 (U.S. 1922)…e been paid to the defendant, the Treasurer of Massachusetts, under duress, and in obedience to statutes held by this Court to be unconstitutional in International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 135, and [*37] Locomobile Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 146. On the merits the defendant says that these taxes were collected under St. 1909, c. 490, Part III, § 56, held valid in Baltic Mining Co. v. Massachusetts, 231 U. S. 68; that the maximum limit to the tax fixed by that statute, which saved it, was su…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- W. Union Tel. Co. v. The State of Kan. Ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1910)
- Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1917)
- Pullman Co. v. State of Kan. Ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1910)
- Ludwig v. W. Union Tel. Co., 216 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1910)