Lusk v. Sessions

Supreme Court of Kansas

Lusk v. Sessions

147 P. 794, 95 Kan. 271, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 205

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 10, 1915

DocketNo. 19,559

StatusPublished

This text of 147 P. 794 (Lusk v. Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lusk v. Sessions, 147 P. 794, 95 Kan. 271, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 205 (kan 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

The receivers of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company paid under protest the tax required by the terms of the corporation tax law of 1913 (Laws 1913, ch. 135), and sued to recover the amount. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the plaintiff appeals.

The company named is a foreign corporation which has complied with certain conditions entitling it under our statutes to the same treatment as domestic corporations. The argument is made that if the tax law referred to is unconstitutional, and can. not be enforced against domestic corporations, the Frisco company is entitled to the same exemption by virtue of the guaranty of privileges equal to those of corporations char[272]*272tered by this state. We have decided that the act in question is valid as to domestic corporations, and this conclusion necessarily disposes of the contentions made in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

Dawson, J., not sitting.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

The receivers of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company paid under protest the tax required by the terms of the corporation tax law of 1913 (Laws 1913, ch. 135), and sued to recover the amount. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the plaintiff appeals.

The company named is a foreign corporation which has complied with certain conditions entitling it under our statutes to the same treatment as domestic corporations. The argument is made that if the tax law referred to is unconstitutional, and can. not be enforced against domestic corporations, the Frisco company is entitled to the same exemption by virtue of the guaranty of privileges equal to those of corporations char[272]*272tered by this state. We have decided that the act in question is valid as to domestic corporations, and this conclusion necessarily disposes of the contentions made in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

Dawson, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 P. 794, 95 Kan. 271, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lusk-v-sessions-kan-1915.