Pacific Exp Co v. Seibert
Decision Date | 04 January 1892 |
Citation | 35 L.Ed. 1035,142 U.S. 339,12 S.Ct. 250 |
Parties | PACIFIC EXP. CO. v. SEIBERT, State Auditor, et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE LAMAR.
This was a suit in equity by the Pacific Express Company, a Nebraska corporation, against John M. Seibert, state auditor and John M. Wood, attorney-general, of the state of Misso1a25uri, to restrain and enjoin the collection of certain alleged illegal taxes assessed against the company under the provisions of an act of the Missouri legislature, which was claimed to be in conflict with the constitution of Missouri and the constitution of the United States.
The act in question, approved May 16, 1889, is as follows:
The bill, filed on the 17th of June, 1890, contained substantially the following material averments: At the date of the passage of the aforesaid act of the legislature the complainant was, and ever since that date has been, engaged in the business of conveying valuable articles to, from, and through the state of Missouri, and various parts of that state, by express, at the same time providing its own transportation, under contracts with the Missouri Pacific, and other railroad companies operating lines in that state, to convey the property bailed to it. In the prosecution of such business, complainant, under contracts of hire, receives, and has received, property at various points in other states, and conveys it to various places in Mis- souri, and also property in Missouri which it conveys to points in other states. At the time and during the period mentioned there were other persons and corporations engaged in a like business in the state of Missouri, who either owned their own transportation facilities, or procured the same by hire from persons not a railroad or steam-boat company, or any one connected with such corporations.
The bill then averred that, if the act of the legislature aforesaid was a valid law, complainant would be required to pay taxes to the state for the year ending April 1, 1890, in the estimated sum of over $12,000, and if the act was a valid law only in respect to the gross receipts upon such business as complainant had done between points wholly in the state of Missouri, and void as to gross receipts upon its business done between points within the state and points in other states, then complainant would be required to pay taxes for such period in the sum of over $3,000; that complainant was willing to pay any taxes which might be found to have been legally assessed against it, but it declared that the aforesaid act of the Missouri legislature was not a valid law, because it sought to impose a tax upon the business of interstate commerce, in which complainant was engaged, and was therefore violative of the constitution of the United States.
The bill then averred that neither the tax of 2 per cent, mentioned in section 2 of the act of the legislature, nor any other equivalent tax, was imposed, by that act or any other law of the state, upon other common carriers engaged in similar business as complainant, who do not hire transportation by 'contract with any railroad or steam-boat company,' etc.; that there was no provision in that act in respect to the equalization of the taxes required to be levied under it by state and county boards of equalization, as in the case of other state taxes, and the tax assessed under said act was not uniform; and it was claimed, therefore, that the act was violative of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, because it denied to the complainant the equal protection of the laws, and was also violative of section 3, art. 10, of the constitution of Missouri, because the taxes levied were not 'uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.'
The bill also averred that the act under consideration was violative of certain other mentioned provisions of the constitution of Missouri; and that the defendants, being the officials charged with the duty of enforcing the provisions thereof, would proceed to enforce the same unless restrained by the order or process of the court by instituting legal proceedings to collect said taxes and the penalties prescribed, and would thereby prohibit complainant from carrying on its business in Missouri, whereby complainant would be subjected to and harassed by a multiplicity of suits, and would suffer great and irreparable loss and damage, for which it had no adequate remedy at law.
Wherefore an injunction was prayed to restrain the collection of said taxes, and a decree was asked adjudging the aforesaid act of the legislature of Missouri invalid and unconstitutional, together with a prayer for such other and further relief as might appear equitable and just.
Upon the filing of the bill, and upon hearing argument of counsel for both sides of the controversy, the court, on the 23d of June, 1890, granted a temporary injunction, as prayed.
The defendants then demurred to the bill upon three grounds: (1) That it did not state facts sufficient to entitle complainant to the relief prayed; (2) that there was no equity in it; and (3) that it appeared from the bill that complainant had an adequate remedy at law. The demurrer was sustained, and a decree was entered dissolving the temporary injunction and dismissing the bill for want of equity. 44 Fed. Rep. 810. From that decree the complainant appealed, and the case is now here for consideration.
W. W. Morsman, for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 343-348 intentionally omitted] John M. Wood, for appellees.
Mr. Justice LAMAR, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
According to the view we take of the case, it is not necessary to inquire into the special equities set forth in the bill and relied upon in the argument for complainant to show that this record presents a case for the interposition of a federal court, for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of a state tax. The primary and fundamental ground on which the maintenance of such a suit rests is the unlawfulness of the tax against which relief is sought, or, in other words, the invalidity or unconstitutionality of the legislative act under the authority of which the tax is imposed. It is true that this ground is not in itself sufficient. But when the illegality of the tax, or the invalidity or unconstitutionality of the legislative act under which it is imposed, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bixman
...A difference was made between a manufacturer and a wholesaler, and it was held proper classification. In Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 12 Sup. Ct. 250, 35 L. Ed. 1035, it was held that a statute of this state which defined an express company to be persons and corporations who carry......
-
Colgate v. Harvey
...interests. Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 10 S. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892, 895; Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 12 S. Ct. 250, 35 L. Ed. 1035, 1039; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 5 S. Ct 357, 23 L. Ed. 923, 925. Exemptions, diversity of taxation, both as ......
-
Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
... ... pages 9 and 10. "The constitution is not violated by ... special legislation applying equally to all artificial ... bodies." Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 ... U.S. 352 (12 S.Ct. 250; 35 L. Ed., 1035.) See authorities ... cited in support of this on page 7, printed brief ... ...
-
Miller v. Crawford
... ... Lim. (7 ed.), 184; Id., 236; ... Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678; State v. Hogan, 63 Ohio ... [70 Ohio St. 210] St., 202; Pacific Expo. Co. v. Seibert, 142 ... U.S. 339; Soo Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703; Barbier v ... Connolly, 113 U.S. 27; Railway Co. v. Mackay, 127 U.S ... ...