Southeastern Express Co. v. Robertson

Supreme Court

Southeastern Express Co. v. Robertson

264 U.S. 541, 44 S. Ct. 424, 68 L. Ed. 840, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2535

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 21, 1924

DocketNo. 216

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 264 U.S. 541 (Southeastern Express Co. v. Robertson) 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

Southeastern Express Co. v. Robertson, 264 U.S. 541, 44 S. Ct. 424, 68 L. Ed. 840, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2535 (1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This .ease involves the consideration of the privilege tax passed upon in Southeastern Express Co. v. Robertson, just decided, ante, 535.

It is a suit in equity which seeks to have the tax decreed “illegal, void and unenforceable.” An interlocutory injunction was petitioned and the district judge called to his assistance two other judges in accordance' with § 266 of the Judicial Code to hear the application. A preliminary restraining order was granted.

The application for” injunction coming on subsequently to be heard, was denied, and from the order and decree denying it this appeal was granted and is prosecuted.

The grounds of appeal and assignments of error are the same as in the other case, except as we shall notice, the difference being only in the nature of the suit and procedure — in this case a bill in equity to enjoin the enforcement of the second year’s tax; in that, grounds of defense against the collection of the first year’s tax, the facts being stipulated. In this they are alleged in the bill of complaint.

In that case all the grounds relied on in this case were' decided adversely to the Express Company, that is, the tax was adjudged to be legal, and the judgment was affirmed by the opinion just delivered, and on the authority of that decree the decree in this case may be based.

It may be well to observe, to avoid misunderstanding, that in the order and decree denying the interlocutory injunction the statute of Mississippi was held constitutional against the charge of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and also of being a charge against Article I, § 8, Clause 3, being the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. The ruling in the latter respect is assailed and assigned as error in the record but not in the argument and we therefore do not discuss it. It will be observed besides that the tax imposed is on business done between stations in the State. § 21, c. 104, Laws of 1920.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This .ease involves the consideration of the privilege tax passed upon in Southeastern Express Co. v. Robertson, just decided, ante, 535.

It is a suit in equity which seeks to have the tax decreed “illegal, void and unenforceable.” An interlocutory injunction was petitioned and the district judge called to his assistance two other judges in accordance' with § 266 of the Judicial Code to hear the application. A preliminary restraining order was granted.

The application for” injunction coming on subsequently to be heard, was denied, and from the order and decree denying it this appeal was granted and is prosecuted.

The grounds of appeal and assignments of error are the same as in the other case, except as we shall notice, the difference being only in the nature of the suit and procedure — in this case a bill in equity to enjoin the enforcement of the second year’s tax; in that, grounds of defense against the collection of the first year’s tax, the facts being stipulated. In this they are alleged in the bill of complaint.

In that case all the grounds relied on in this case were' decided adversely to the Express Company, that is, the tax was adjudged to be legal, and the judgment was affirmed by the opinion just delivered, and on the authority of that decree the decree in this case may be based.

It may be well to observe, to avoid misunderstanding, that in the order and decree denying the interlocutory injunction the statute of Mississippi was held constitutional against the charge of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and also of being a charge against Article I, § 8, Clause 3, being the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. The ruling in the latter respect is assailed and assigned as error in the record but not in the argument and we therefore do not discuss it. It will be observed besides that the tax imposed is on business done between stations in the State. § 21, c. 104, Laws of 1920.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 U.S. 541, 44 S. Ct. 424, 68 L. Ed. 840, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southeastern-express-co-v-robertson-scotus-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack