SOUTHEASTERN EXPRESS COMPANY
v.
ROBERTSON, STATE REVENUE AGENT, ET AL.
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.
Southeastern Express Company challenged the constitutionality of a Mississippi privilege tax on its business operations within the state, seeking an injunction to prevent its enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the injunction, holding that the tax was constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and did not violate the Commerce Clause, relying on its contemporaneous decision in the related case involving the same tax for an earlier year.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the Court.
This .ease involves the consideration of the privilege tax passed upon in Southeastern Express Co. v. Robertson, just decided, ante, 535.
It is a suit in equity which seeks to have the tax decreed “illegal, void and unenforceable.” An interlocutory injunction was petitioned and the district judge called to his assistance two other judges in accordance' with § 266 of the Judicial Code to hear the application. A preliminary restraining order was granted.
The application for” injunction coming on subsequently to be heard, was denied, and from the order and decree denying it this appeal was granted and is prosecuted.
The grounds of appeal and assignments of error are the same as in the other case, except as we shall notice, the difference being only in the nature of the suit and procedure — in this case a bill in equity to enjoin the enforcement of the second year’s tax; in that, grounds of defense against the collection of the first year’s tax, the facts being stipulated. In this they are alleged in the bill of complaint.
In that case all the grounds relied on in this case were' decided adversely to the Express Company, that is, the tax was adjudged to be legal, and the judgment was affirmed by the opinion just delivered, and on the authority of that decree the decree in this case may be based.
It may be well to observe, to avoid misunderstanding, that in the order and decree denying the interlocutory injunction the statute of Mississippi was held constitutional against the charge of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and also of being a charge against Article I, § 8, Clause 3, being the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. The ruling in the latter respect is assailed and assigned as error in the record but not in the argument and we therefore do not discuss it. It will be observed besides that the tax imposed is on business done between stations in the State. § 21, c. 104, Laws of 1920.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (55 total)
-
Stipcich v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 277 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1928)…ony as to the disclosure made to Coblentz, are we able to say what its bearing may be on thé alleged misstatements in the application. Under such circumstances we must decline to pass upon this defense. Compare Southeastern Express Co. v. Robertson, 264 U. S. 541; Ewing v. Howard, 7 Wall. 499, 503. The truthfulness of the answers and their effect will be open for consideration on the new trial. Reversed. The rulé that changes in conditions material to the risk, which occur between the opening of negotiatio…
-
Smolowe v. Delendo Corp., 136 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1943)…inciple — the rule in Clayton’s Case, 1 Me-riv., Ch., 572, in English trust law — it is held to apply only among different claimants against a trustee and does not apply in favor of the wrongdoing trustee himself. Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1-12, 44 S.Ct. 424, 68 L.Ed. 873; Scott on Trusts, 1939, §§ 517, 518; 4 Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, 1935, §§ 926-928. Thus, it does not reach the “quasi-short” sale at all; that is, one which differs from a short sale only in that the stock sold is delivered from…
-
United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2005)…which monies paid by later investors are used to pay artificially high returns to the initial investors, with the goal of attracting more investors.” In re Bonham, 229 F. 3d 750, 759, n. 1 (9th Cir.2000). See also Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1, 44 S.Ct. 424, 68 L.Ed. 873 (1924). . Among other things, Tang testified on direct examination in this way: Q: Did you ever [have] any discussions with Mr. Silvestri during this time period about the fact that U.S. Guarantee did not have the assets to back these…
Previewing 3 of 55 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence