Goldrick v. Felt Tarrant Mfg Co Same v. Du Grenier
| Citation | 84 L.Ed. 584,309 U.S. 70,60 S.Ct. 404 |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | 474,Nos. 45,s. 45 |
| Parties | McGOLDRICK, City Comptroller, v. FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. SAME v. A. H. DU GRENIER, Inc., et al |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. William C. Chanler and Paxton Blair, both of New York City, for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 70-72 intentionally omitted] Mr. Newton K. Fox, of Washington, D.C., for respondent Felt & Tarrant mfg. co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 72-74 intentionally omitted] Mr. John H. Jackson, of New York City, for respondents A. H. Du Grenier, Inc., and another.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 75 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are companion cases to No. 475, McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33, 60 S.Ct. 388, 84 L.Ed. —-, decided this day. As in that case the question for decision is whether the New York City tax laid upon sales of goods for consumption as applied to respondents infringes the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3.
Upon certiorari to review determinations by the Comptroller of the City of New York, that each of the respondents was subject to the tax, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court set the levy aside. Matter of Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., v. Taylor, 254 App.Div. 246, 4 N.Y.S.2d 615; Matter of A. H. DuGrenier, Inc. v. McGoldrick, 255 App.Div. 961, 8 N.Y.S.2d 667. The New York Court of Appeals, without opinion, affirmed the judgment in each case, 279 N.Y. 678, 18 N.E.2d 311; 281 N.Y. 608, 22 N.E.2d 172, but by its amended remittitur declared that the affirmance was upon the sole ground that the tax infringed the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The relevant provisions of the taxing act are set out in our opinion in the Berwind-White Company case and need not be repeated here.
Respondent, Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., an Illinois corporation, with its factory and principal place of business in that state, manufactures and sells adding and calculating machines known as comptometers. It maintains an office in New York City, from which its agents solicit in the city orders for comptometers, which are forwarded to the Illinois office for approval. If accepted each order is filled by allocating to it the purchased comptometer designated by its serial number. It is invoiced to the purchaser and shipped to the New York City office of respondent's sales agent, where it is inspected, tested and adjusted, and then delivered to the purchaser. Remit- tances are made by the purchaser direct to the Illinois office. The course of business in soliciting and filling orders so far as now material is that of the same company, described in Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co. v. Gallagher, 306 U.S. 62, 59 S.Ct. 376, 83 L.Ed. 488.
Respondent, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller Bros Co v. State of Maryland
...88 L.Ed. 1313; McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33, 60 S.Ct. 388, 84 L.Ed. 565; and McGoldrick v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 309 U.S. 70, 60 S.Ct. 404, 84 L.Ed. 584. 20. Compare Southern Pacific Co. v. Gallagher, 306 U.S. 167, 180—181, 59 S.Ct. 389, 395, 83 L.Ed. 586, wit......
-
Hood Sons v. Du Mond
...as intrastate. McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33, 60 S.Ct. 388, 84 L.Ed. 565, 128 A.L.R. 876; McGoldrick v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 309 U.S. 70, 60 S.Ct. 404, 84 L.Ed. 584; McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U.S. 430, 60 S.Ct. 670, 84 L.Ed. 849; Nelson v. Sear......
-
State v. Northwestern States Portland Cement Co.
...We cannot lightly brush aside the statement made by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in his dissent in the McGoldrick case (309 U.S. 69, 60 S.Ct. 404, 84 L.Ed. 583): '* * * That immunity still remains an essential buttress of the Union, and a free national market, so far as it can be preserved with......
-
Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Smith
...303 U.S. 250, 58 Sup. Ct. 546; McGoldwick v. Berwin-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33, 60 Sup. Ct. 388; McGoldwick v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 309 U.S. 70, 60 Sup. Ct. 404; Nelson v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 61 Sup. Ct. 586, 132 A.L.R. 475, 85 L. Ed. 888, 312 U.S. 715, 61 Sup. Ct......