SEATTLE GAS CO.
v.
SEATTLE
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.
Seattle Gas Co. challenged a Seattle municipal tax of 3% on its gross income from furnishing gas to city consumers as violating the Fourteenth Amendment and the contract clause, arguing the tax infringed its constitutional rights because the city competed with it through an electric light business. The Supreme Court affirmed the Washington Supreme Court's judgment upholding the tax, applying the same reasoning as in the companion case Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. City of Seattle decided the same day.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court,
This case comes here on appeal under § 237 of the Judicial Code from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington, 172 Wash. 701; 21 P. (2d) 732, upholding a municipal license or excise tax, assailed by appellant as repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment and the contract clause of the Federal Constitution. The ordinance, which imposes a tax of 3% of the gross income from appellant’s business of furnishing gas to consumers in the City of Seattle, and the federal questions raised are the same as those in Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. City of Seattle, decided this day, ante, p. 619. Appellant’s bill of complaint, demurrer to which was sustained by the state court, alleges that the appellant is engaged in the distribution of gas, used for lighting in the City of Seattle, in competition with the city, the appellee, which conducts an electric light business, and that its constitutional rights are in fringed by the imposition of the tax. Appellant seeks recovery of an installment of the tax which it has paid, and an injunction restraining the collection of future installments. For the reasons stated at length in the opitiion in Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. City of Seattle, supra, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter, Mr. Justice McReynolds, Mr. Justice Sutherland and Mr. Justice Butler, concur in the result.