Mr. Chief Justice Taft
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Vermont Supreme Court depended for its conclusions chiefly upon Coe v.
Errol,
116 U. S. 517, which is the leading case on this subject. There logs had been cut on Wentworth’s Location in New Hampshire during the winter, and had been drawn down to Errol in- the same State, and placed in Clear Stream and on the banks thereof on lands of John Akers and part on land of George C. Demerritt in said town, to be from thence floated down the Androscoggin River to the State of Maine (p. 518).
It is not clear how long they had lain there, but certainly for part of one winter season. This Court, speaking by-Mr. Justice Bradley, sought to fix the time when
such logs, in the course* of their being taken from’ New Hampshire to Maine, ceased to be part of the mass of property of New Hampshire and passed into the immunity from state taxation as things actually in interstate commerce. The learned Justice states the rule to. be “ that such goods do not cease to be part of the general mass of property in the State, subject, .as such, to its jurisdiction, and to . taxation in the usual way, until they have been shipped, or entered with a common carrier for transportation to another State, or have been started upon such transportation in a continuous route or journey.” (P. 527.)
Again,, on page 528, Justice Bradley said: “ The carrying of them in carts or other vehicles, or even floating them, to the depot where the journey is to commence is no part of'that journey. That is all preliminary work, performed for the purpose of putting the property in a state of preparation and readiness for transportation. Until actually launched on its way to another State, or committed to a common carrier for transportation to such State, its destination is not fixed and certain. It may be sold or otherwise disposed of within the State, and never put in course' of transportation out of the State* Carrying it from the farm, or the forest, to the depot, is only an interior movement of the property, entirely within the State, for the purpose, it is true, but only for the purpose, of putting it into a course of exportation; it is no part of the exportation itself. Until shipped or started on its final journey out of the State its exportation is a matter altogether
in fieri,
and not at all a fixed and certain thing.
“ The application of these principles to the present case is obvious. The logs which were taxed, and the tax on which .ivas not abated by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, had not, when so taxed, been shipped or started on their final voyage or journey to the State of
Maine. They had only been drawn down from Went-worth’s Location to Errol, the place from which they were to be transported to Lewiston in the State of Maine. There they were to remain until it should be convenient to send them to their destination.” (P. 528.)
The question here then is, Where did the interstate shipment begin? When the wood was placed in the waters of the West River in the towns of Jamaica, Strat-ton, Londonderry and Winhall, or at the boom in Brattle-boro? The whole drive was ten thousand cords. Six thousand cords of that, shipped from these towns after the third of April, went through directly to Hinsdale, New Hampshire, without stopping. Certainly that was a continuous passage and the wood when floating in the West River was as much in interstate commerce as when on the Connecticut. Why was it any more in interstate commerce than that which had been shipped before April 3rd from the same towns for the same destination by the same natural carrying agency, to wit, the flowing water of the West and Connecticut Rivers? Did the fact that before April 3rd the waters of the Connecticut were frozen, or so high as to prevent the logs reaching Hins-dale, requiring a temporary halting at the mouth of the West River, break the real continuity of the interstate journey? We think not. The preparation for the interstate journey had all been completed at the towns on the West River where the wood had been put in the stream. The boom at the mouth of the West River did not constitute an entrepot or depot for the gathering of logs preparatory for the final journey. It was only a safety appliance in the course of the journey. It was a harbor of refuge from danger to a shipment on its way. It was not used by the owner for any beneficial purpose of his own except to facilitate the safe delivery of the wood at Hinsdale on their final journey already begun. The logs were not detained to. be classified, measured, counted
or in any way dealt with by the owner for his benefit, except to save them from destruction in the course of their journey that but for natural causes, over which he could exercise no control, would have been actually continuous. This was not the case in
Coe
v.
Errol.
It is evident from the statement of that case, and Mr. Justice Bradley’s language, that the logs were partly drawn and partly floated to Errol and deposited some in the stream and some on the banks, where “ they were to rémain until it should be convenient to send them to their destination,” and- they were being gathered there for the whole previous winter season. It was an entrepot or depot as the Justice several times describes it. The* mere fact that the owner intended to send them out of the State under such circumstances did not put them into transit in interstate commerce. But here, we have the intention put into accomplishment by launching, and manifested by an actually continuous journey of more than half the drive, with a halting of less than half of it in the course of the interstate journey to save it from loss, and only for that purpose.
The case at bar is easily distinguishable from the other cases cited by the Vermont Supreme Court. In
Bacon
v.
Illinois,
227 U. S. 504, Bacon had bought shipments of grain
in transitu
from Western States to New York in the contract for which the carriers had given the shipper the right to remove it “ for the mere temporary purposes of inspecting, weighing, cleaning, clipping, drying, sacking, grading or mixing, or changing the ownership, consignee or destination.” On arrival of the grain in Chicago, Bacon removed the grain from the cars to his private elevator. This removal was for the purpose of inspecting, weighing, grading, mixing, etc., but not to change its ownership, consignee or destination. It was held that whatever his intention, the grain was at rest within his complete power of disposition and held for his
own benefit and was taxable. His storing of the grain was not to facilitate interstate shipment of the grain, or save it from the danger of the journey. It was to enable him to treat the grain so as to enable' him more conveniently to dispose of it. He made his warehouse a depot for its preparation for further shipment and sale. He had thus suspended the interstate commerce journey and brought the grain within the taxable jurisdiction of the State!
So, in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Chief Justice Taft
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Vermont Supreme Court depended for its conclusions chiefly upon Coe v.
Errol,
116 U. S. 517, which is the leading case on this subject. There logs had been cut on Wentworth’s Location in New Hampshire during the winter, and had been drawn down to Errol in- the same State, and placed in Clear Stream and on the banks thereof on lands of John Akers and part on land of George C. Demerritt in said town, to be from thence floated down the Androscoggin River to the State of Maine (p. 518).
It is not clear how long they had lain there, but certainly for part of one winter season. This Court, speaking by-Mr. Justice Bradley, sought to fix the time when
such logs, in the course* of their being taken from’ New Hampshire to Maine, ceased to be part of the mass of property of New Hampshire and passed into the immunity from state taxation as things actually in interstate commerce. The learned Justice states the rule to. be “ that such goods do not cease to be part of the general mass of property in the State, subject, .as such, to its jurisdiction, and to . taxation in the usual way, until they have been shipped, or entered with a common carrier for transportation to another State, or have been started upon such transportation in a continuous route or journey.” (P. 527.)
Again,, on page 528, Justice Bradley said: “ The carrying of them in carts or other vehicles, or even floating them, to the depot where the journey is to commence is no part of'that journey. That is all preliminary work, performed for the purpose of putting the property in a state of preparation and readiness for transportation. Until actually launched on its way to another State, or committed to a common carrier for transportation to such State, its destination is not fixed and certain. It may be sold or otherwise disposed of within the State, and never put in course' of transportation out of the State* Carrying it from the farm, or the forest, to the depot, is only an interior movement of the property, entirely within the State, for the purpose, it is true, but only for the purpose, of putting it into a course of exportation; it is no part of the exportation itself. Until shipped or started on its final journey out of the State its exportation is a matter altogether
in fieri,
and not at all a fixed and certain thing.
“ The application of these principles to the present case is obvious. The logs which were taxed, and the tax on which .ivas not abated by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, had not, when so taxed, been shipped or started on their final voyage or journey to the State of
Maine. They had only been drawn down from Went-worth’s Location to Errol, the place from which they were to be transported to Lewiston in the State of Maine. There they were to remain until it should be convenient to send them to their destination.” (P. 528.)
The question here then is, Where did the interstate shipment begin? When the wood was placed in the waters of the West River in the towns of Jamaica, Strat-ton, Londonderry and Winhall, or at the boom in Brattle-boro? The whole drive was ten thousand cords. Six thousand cords of that, shipped from these towns after the third of April, went through directly to Hinsdale, New Hampshire, without stopping. Certainly that was a continuous passage and the wood when floating in the West River was as much in interstate commerce as when on the Connecticut. Why was it any more in interstate commerce than that which had been shipped before April 3rd from the same towns for the same destination by the same natural carrying agency, to wit, the flowing water of the West and Connecticut Rivers? Did the fact that before April 3rd the waters of the Connecticut were frozen, or so high as to prevent the logs reaching Hins-dale, requiring a temporary halting at the mouth of the West River, break the real continuity of the interstate journey? We think not. The preparation for the interstate journey had all been completed at the towns on the West River where the wood had been put in the stream. The boom at the mouth of the West River did not constitute an entrepot or depot for the gathering of logs preparatory for the final journey. It was only a safety appliance in the course of the journey. It was a harbor of refuge from danger to a shipment on its way. It was not used by the owner for any beneficial purpose of his own except to facilitate the safe delivery of the wood at Hinsdale on their final journey already begun. The logs were not detained to. be classified, measured, counted
or in any way dealt with by the owner for his benefit, except to save them from destruction in the course of their journey that but for natural causes, over which he could exercise no control, would have been actually continuous. This was not the case in
Coe
v.
Errol.
It is evident from the statement of that case, and Mr. Justice Bradley’s language, that the logs were partly drawn and partly floated to Errol and deposited some in the stream and some on the banks, where “ they were to rémain until it should be convenient to send them to their destination,” and- they were being gathered there for the whole previous winter season. It was an entrepot or depot as the Justice several times describes it. The* mere fact that the owner intended to send them out of the State under such circumstances did not put them into transit in interstate commerce. But here, we have the intention put into accomplishment by launching, and manifested by an actually continuous journey of more than half the drive, with a halting of less than half of it in the course of the interstate journey to save it from loss, and only for that purpose.
The case at bar is easily distinguishable from the other cases cited by the Vermont Supreme Court. In
Bacon
v.
Illinois,
227 U. S. 504, Bacon had bought shipments of grain
in transitu
from Western States to New York in the contract for which the carriers had given the shipper the right to remove it “ for the mere temporary purposes of inspecting, weighing, cleaning, clipping, drying, sacking, grading or mixing, or changing the ownership, consignee or destination.” On arrival of the grain in Chicago, Bacon removed the grain from the cars to his private elevator. This removal was for the purpose of inspecting, weighing, grading, mixing, etc., but not to change its ownership, consignee or destination. It was held that whatever his intention, the grain was at rest within his complete power of disposition and held for his
own benefit and was taxable. His storing of the grain was not to facilitate interstate shipment of the grain, or save it from the danger of the journey. It was to enable him to treat the grain so as to enable' him more conveniently to dispose of it. He made his warehouse a depot for its preparation for further shipment and sale. He had thus suspended the interstate commerce journey and brought the grain within the taxable jurisdiction of the State!
So, in
General Oil Co.
v.
Crain,
209 U. S. 211, the Oil Company had its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee, for the manufacture and sale of illuminating oils in interstate commerce. It imported oil from other States and put it into a tank, appropriately marked for distribution in smaller vessels to fill orders for oil already sold in Arkansas, Louisiana and-Mississippi. The Court held,that the first shipment had ended, that its storage at Memphis for division and distribution to various points was for the business purposes and profit of the company. The Court .continued: “It was only there for distribution, it is said,, to fulfill orders already received. But to do this required that the property be given a locality in the State beyond a mere halting in its transportation.” (P. 231.) The tank at Memphis thus became a depot in its oil business for preparing the oil for another interstate journey. So far as it bears upon this case,
American Steel & Wire Co.
v.
Speed,
192 U. S. 500, presented a similar state of facts and ruling.
In
Diamond Match Co.
v.
Ontonagon,
188 U. S. 82, the company cut one hundred and eighty million feet of timber for the purpose of- saving the same from fire and to protect and preserve it put.it into the Ontonagon River, Michigan. It was drawn down to the mouth of the river into the township of Ontonagon,. Michigan, to the sorting ground and pier jams of the company, and there it was taxed. The logs remained there and were
shipped as they were needed to Green Bay, Wisconsin, to the mills of the company. Not more than forty million feet a season were needed. Palpably the company’s sorting grounds and pier jams were a depot for the keeping of the logs for the business purposes of the company and there was no interstate commerce until the final shipment to Green Bay began.
In the cases of
Brown
v.
Houston,
114 U. S. 622, and
Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co.
v.
Bates,
156 U. S. 577, the coal in barges in the Mississippi River which was' the subject of taxation had come to rest in Louisiana, after a trip from Pittsburg, and was being held for sale to anyone who might wish to buy.
The interstate -commerce clause of the Constitution does not give immunity to movable property from local taxation which is not discriminative, unless it is in actual continuous transit in interstate commerce. When it is shipped by a common carrier from one State, to another, in the course of such an uninterrupted journey it is clearly immune. The doubt arises when there are interruptions in the journey and when the property in its transportation is under the complete control of the owner during .the passage. If the interruptions are only to promote the safe or convenient transit, then the continuity of the interstate trip is not broken.
State
v.
Engle,
34 N. J. L. 425;
State
v.
Carrigan,
39 N. J. L. 35. This was the case in
Kelley
v.
Rhoads,
188 U. S. 1, in which sheep, driven 500 miles from Utah to Nebraska, which travelled nine miles a day, were held immune from taxation in Wyoming where they stopped and grazed on their way. Another instance is as to that part of the logs in
Coe
v.
Errol,
which were not before this Court because the Supreme Court of New Hampshire had found them nontaxable in New Hampshire. They were cut in Maine and were floated down the Androscoggin on their way to Lewiston, Maine, but were delayed for a season at Errol,
New Hampshire, because of low water. In the cases just cited the transit had begun in one State and was continued through another on the way to a third. This circumstance strengthened the inference that the interruption in the intermediate State did not destroy interstate continuity of. the trip. But this is not always so, as
Bacon
v.
Illinois
and
General Oil Co.
v.
Crain
show. In other words, in such cases interstate continuity of transit is to be determined by a consideration of the various factors of the situation. Chief among these are the intention of the owner, the control he retains to change destination, the agency by which the transit is effected, the actual continuity of the transportation, and the occasion or purpose of the interruption during which the tax is sought to be levied.
Of all the cases in this Court where such movable property has been held taxable, none is nearer in its facts than Coe v.
Errol
to the case at bar* We, have pointed out the distinction between the two which requires á different conclusion here.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.