Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle

278 U.S. 460, 49 S. Ct. 204, 73 L. Ed. 454, 1929 U.S. LEXIS 16
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 18, 1929
Docket278
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 278 U.S. 460 (Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460, 49 S. Ct. 204, 73 L. Ed. 454, 1929 U.S. LEXIS 16 (1929).

Opinions

[462]*462Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant is incorporated under the laws of Maine. Its authorized capital stock is $45,000,000. Less than $30,000,000 has been issued and the total value of the corporate property does not exceed that sum. It does an extensive business in meats and foodstuffs throughout the Union and abroad. During 1916 when the capital stock was $20,000,000 the articles of incorporation were duly filed with the proper state officer and the corporation began to carry on closely associated interstate and intrastate business in Washington. Its property therein is ■ now worth $40,000. Gross sales by the corporation for the [463]*463year ended October 31, 1926, were $231,750,000. Of these $1,313,275 were made in Washington, less than half bbing intrastate.

The statutory provisions here important appear in the sections of Remington’s Compiled Statutes of Washington mentioned below.

Sec. 3852 authorizes foreign corporations to .do business within the State as those organized under her laws upon compliance with conditions prescribed by Secs. 3853-3854.

Sec. 3853 requires every foreign corporation to file with the Secretary of State a certified copy of its charter, etc., and Sec. 3854 requires appointment of a local agent.

Sec. 3836 (as amended by Chap. 149, Extraordinary Session, 1925) directs that every local and foreign corporation required by law to file its articles with the Secretary of State shall pay graduated filing fees, not above $3,000, reckoned upon its authorized capital stock.1

Sec. 3837 requires every corporation, foreign or domestic, desiring to file with the Secretary of State articles [464]*464amendatory or supplemental articles increasing its capital stock to pay the fees prescribed in the preceding section less any sum theretofore paid.2

Sec. 3841, (as amended by Chap. 149, Extraordinary Session, 1925) requires corporations, foreign and domestic, to pay annual license fees, not above $3,000, reckoned upon authorized capital stock.3

Secs. 3842, 3843, 3844, 3846, 3855, and 3861 provide heavy penalties for failure to pay prescribed filing fees .and license taxes.

Filing fees because of the increased capital, and license taxes for 1927, both reckoned upon the authorized capital stock, were demanded of appellant. Penalties for failure to comply were threatened. By an original bill in the-United States District Court, Western District of Washington, it set up the above-stated facts and asked an [465]*465appropriate injunction to prevent enforcement of the demands. A court of three judges heard the cause, denied a preliminary injunction, and dismissed the bill for want of equity.

Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U. S. 178, 187, examined Texas statutes which required foreign corporations to pay permit and franchise taxes graduated according to authorized capital stock and declared them in conflict with the Federal Constitution because they imposed “direct burdens upon interstate commerce, and, moreover, exerted the taxing authority of the State over property and rights which were wholly beyond the confines of the State, and not subject to its jurisdiction, and therefore constituted a taking without due process.” These statutes prescribed [466]*466no maximum tax. In other respects they were not unlike the acts here under consideration.

Unless saved by the $3,000 limitation, the Washington enactments are subject to the constitutional objections pointed out in Looney v. Crane Co., and must be denied effect.

Baltic Mining Co. v. Massachusetts, 231 U. S. 68, upheld a tax based upon authorized capital stock, but limited to $2,000, imposed by Massachusetts upon foreign corporations for the privilege of doing local and domestic business therein. Consideration was given to the fact that the corporate assets, were four times the authorized capital and to the limitation. Weighing all the circumstances, the Court concluded that no direct substantial burden was imposed upon interstate commerce and that property beyond the State was not taxed.

In Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Massachusetts, 268 U. S. 203, 218, we said:

“ It must now be regarded as settled that a State may not burden interstate commerce or tax property beyond her borders under the guise of regulating or taxing intrastate business. So to burden interstate commerce is prohibited by the commerce clause; and the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit taxation of property beyond the State’s jurisdiction. The amount demanded is unimportant when there is no legitimate basis for the tax. So far as the language of Baltic Mining Co. v. Massachusetts, 231 U. S. 68, 87, tends to support.a different view it conflicts with conclusions reached in later opinions and is now definitely disapproved.”

Baltic Mining Co. v. Massachusetts had sometimes been regarded as lending support to the theory that a tax which really burdens interstate commerce and reaches property beyond the State may be sustained if relatively small. This view did not harmonize with the principles approved by Looney v. Crane Co., and was expressly disapproved by Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Mass.

[467]*467It follows that the decree of the court below is erroneous and must be reversed.

Whether, because reckoned upon authorized and not upon actual capital stock, the challenged legislation fails to require like fees for equal privileges within the doctrine of Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp. v. Day, 266 U. S. 71, we need not now consider.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Aurora Corp. v. Tully
457 N.E.2d 735 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
American Insurance v. Lewis
409 N.E.2d 828 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
6 Or. Tax 82 (Oregon Tax Court, 1975)
State Ex Rel. Texas Co. v. Koontz
240 P.2d 525 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1952)
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Corporation & Securities Commission
20 N.W.2d 127 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1945)
Southern Pacific Co. v. McColgan
156 P.2d 81 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn.
322 U.S. 533 (Supreme Court, 1944)
Peters v. Tennessee Cent. Ry., Inc.
167 S.W.2d 973 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1943)
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Virginia
302 U.S. 22 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Commonwealth
183 S.E. 243 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1936)
Atlantic Lumber Co. v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation
197 N.E. 525 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Becker
69 S.W.2d 674 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1934)
State v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
172 S.E. 857 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
Garrett Transfer & Storage Co. v. Pfost
33 P.2d 743 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1933)
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Stratton
187 N.E. 498 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1933)
Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. Alabama
288 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court, 1933)
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Stratton
57 F.2d 211 (S.D. Illinois, 1931)
Union Bag & Paper Corp. v. State
295 P. 748 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. Harmon
295 P. 762 (Montana Supreme Court, 1931)
Western Cartridge Co. v. Emmerson
281 U.S. 511 (Supreme Court, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 U.S. 460, 49 S. Ct. 204, 73 L. Ed. 454, 1929 U.S. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cudahy-packing-co-v-hinkle-scotus-1929.