Leloup v. Port of Mobile
Citation | 127 U.S. 640,32 L.Ed. 311,8 S.Ct. 1380 |
Parties | LELOUP v. PORT OF MOBILE |
Decision Date | 14 May 1888 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Gaylerd B. Clark, for plaintiff in error.
This was an action brought in the Mobile circuit court, in the state of Alabama, by the Port of Mobile, a municipal corporation, against Edward Leloup, agent of the Western Union Telegraph Company, to recover a penalty imposed upon him for the violation of an ordinance of said corporation, adopted in pursuance of the powers given to it by the legislature of Alabama, and in force in August, 1883. The ordinance was as follows, to-wit: The complaint averred that the defendant, being the managing agent of the Western Union Telegraph Company, a corporation having its place of business in the said port of Mobile, and then and there engaged in the business and occupation of transmitting telegrams from and to points within the state of Alabama and between the private individuals of the state of Alabama, as well as between citizens of said state and citizens of other states, committed a breach of said ordinance by neglecting and refusing to pay said license to the said municipal corporation. The complainant further averred that for this breach the recorder of the port of Mobile imposed on the defendant a fine of five dollars, for which sum the suit was brought. The defendant pleaded that at the time of the alleged breach of said ordinance he was the duly appointed manager, at the port of Mobile, of the Western Union Telegraph Company. That said company To this plea a demurrer was filed and sustained by the court, and judgment was given for the plaintiff; and, on appeal to the supreme court of Alabama, this judgment was affirmed. The present writ of error is brought to review the judgment of the supreme court. That court adopted its opinion given on a previous occasion between the same parties, in which the circuit court had decided in favor of the defendant, and its decision was reversed. In that opinion the supreme court said: .
In approaching the question thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cobb v. Department of Public Works
...649, 652; Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489, 496, 7 S. Ct. 592, 30 L. Ed. 694, 697; Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 645, 8 S. Ct. 1380, 32 L. Ed. 311, 313; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141, 148, 9 S. Ct. 256, 32 L. Ed. 637, 639; Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S......
-
PHILA. EAGLES FOOTBALL CLUB, INC. v. City of Phila.
...Supreme Court cases made it clear that interstate commerce was wholly immune from state taxation. See Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640, 8 S.Ct. 1380, 32 L.Ed. 311 (1888); Philadelphia & Southern Mail Steamship Company v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326, 7 S.Ct. 1118, 30 L.Ed. 1200 (1887); ......
-
Teche Lines, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of forrest County
... ... Baltimore & O. R. Co., 127 U.S ... 117, 124, 8 S.Ct. 1037 (32 L.Ed. 94, 96); Leloup v. Port ... of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640, 649, 8 S.Ct. 1380, 1383 (32 ... L.Ed. 311, 314). " N. O., ... ...
-
State v. Bayer
...therefor is a regulation of commerce and is unconstitutional and invalid. (Robbins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U.S. 489; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640; Asher Texas, 128 U.S. 129; Corson v. Maryland, 120 U.S. 502; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U.S. 289; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 ......
-
Sales And Use of Taxation of Internet Transactions
...of the dormant commerce clause was that no state has the right to lay a tax on interstate commerce in any form. Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 8 S. Ct. 1380 (1988); Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. Ed. 678 (b) No direct tax on interstate commerce. The flat prohibition against a tax in any ......
-
Nexus, The Threshold Requirement For State Taxation Of Multi-State Businesses
...of the dormant commerce clause was that no state has the right to lay a tax on interstate commerce in any form. Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 8 S. Ct. 1380 (1988); Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. Ed. 678 (b) No direct tax on interstate commerce. The flat prohibition against a tax in any ......
-
The Slow-Me State: The Emergence of Internet Sales Taxation and Missouri's Anomalous Response: S. Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
...U.S. 328, 338-39 (2008). (13.) See P. HARTMAN, FEDERAL LIMITATIONS ON STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION [section] [section] 2:9-2:17 (1981). (14.) 127 U.S. 640, 648 (1888). This case involved a Mobile, Alabama, municipal ordinance that levied a $225 annual license tax on all telegraph companies tran......