Locomobile Co. Of America v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

246 U.S. 146, 38 S. Ct. 298, 62 L. Ed. 631, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1529
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedOctober 19, 1918
Docket734
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 246 U.S. 146 (Locomobile Co. Of America v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts) 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
Locomobile Co. Of America v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 146, 38 S. Ct. 298, 62 L. Ed. 631, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1529 (1918).

Opinion

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 *147 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.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. American Sugar Refining Co.
47 Pa. D. & C. 276 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1942)
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Virginia
302 U.S. 22 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Anniston Manufacturing Co. v. Davis
301 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. Harmon
295 P. 762 (Montana Supreme Court, 1931)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. McCallum
10 S.W.2d 687 (Texas Supreme Court, 1928)
Great Northern Railway Co. v. State
267 P. 506 (Washington Supreme Court, 1928)
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle
24 F.2d 124 (W.D. Washington, 1928)
Badger v. Crockett, Secretary of State
259 P. 921 (Utah Supreme Court, 1927)
Commonwealth v. Southern Pipe Line Co.
1 Pa. D. & C. 616 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
Burrill v. Locomobile Co.
258 U.S. 34 (Supreme Court, 1922)
J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Stewart
199 P. 909 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)
Old Dominion Co. v. Commonwealth
129 N.E. 613 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Commonwealth
232 Mass. 19 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Lever Bros. v. Commonwealth
232 Mass. 22 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Lawton Spinning Co. v. Commonwealth
232 Mass. 28 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 U.S. 146, 38 S. Ct. 298, 62 L. Ed. 631, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locomobile-co-of-america-v-commonwealth-of-massachusetts-scotus-1918.