C.&E. Marshall Co. v. Ames
| Decision Date | 03 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 25367.,25367. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | C. & E. MARSHALL CO. et al. v. AMES et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by the C. & E. Marshall Company and others against Knowlton L. Ames, Jr., and others, to restrain the Director of Finance from applying the Retailer's Occupation Tax Act, Smith-Hurd Stats. c. 120, § 440 et seq., to complainants. From an adverse decree, the Director of Finance appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Harry M. Fisher, judge.
John E. Cassidy, Atty. Gen. (Montgomery S. Winning, of Springfield, and Mortimer Porges, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Goldman, Allshouse & Healy and Moses, Kennedy, Stein & Bachrach, all of Chicago (Hamilton Moses and Robert G. Dreffein, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
The Director of Finance appeals from a decree of the circuit court of Cook county which restrains him from applying the Retailer's Occupation Tax act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, chap. 120, sec. 440 et seq.) to the occupations of appellees. These appellees are in the business of selling jeweler's supplies to persons and firms engaged in the business of assembling and repairing watches and clocks.
The only controverted question is whether or not in selling watch and clock parts to repairmen the appellees are making sales for use and consumption. The answer to this question depends on whether these articles are resold by the repairmen who purchased them.
The evidence shows that these repair parts, such as crystals, clock-glasses, springs, pinions, etc., are in some instances subject to minor alterations to make a perfect fit. However, it is clear they are not materially changed and go into the customer's watch or clock in substantially the same form as when they are purchased. It also appears that the parts are sometimes billed separate from the labor or service incident to their replacement, and, further, that repair parts are frequently resold by dealers engaged in that business from second-hand or third-hand watches and clocks which are dismantled for such resale.
The appellees contend, and the trial court held, that rule No. 22 of the Department of Finance, which is intended to apply to them, is in conflict with the provisions of the Retailer's Occupation Tax act. The circuit court held that these sales by the appellees do not constitute sales at retail as defined by the act, because they are not sales for use or consumption within the meaning thereof.
We have recently held that sales of supplies by optical wholesale houses to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Modern Dairy Co. v. Department of Revenue
... ... v. Ames, 359 Ill. 178, 184, 194 N.E. 268, the title of the new act omitted 'at retail' and described sales ... H. Mallen Co. v. Department of Finance, 372 Ill. 598, 25 N.E.2d 43; C. & E. Marshall Co. v. Ames, 373 Ill. 381, 26 N.E.2d 483. This strict and narrow construction of these terms led ... ...
-
Dep't of Revenue v. Jennison-Wright Corp.
...service is not engaged in a business that is subject to the tax. Ahern v. Nudelman, 374 Ill. 237, 29 N.E.2d 268;C. & E. Marshall Co. v. Ames, 373 Ill. 381, 26 N.E.2d 483;Bradley Supply Co. v. Ames, 359 Ill. 162, 194 N.E. 272. Under the circumstances of appellants' dealings with Wabash, the ......
- People ex rel. City of Chicago v. Barrett
-
People ex rel. Swartchild & Co. v. Carter
...watch and clock parts and jewelry findings. The basis of the claim lies in the fact that this court held in C. & E. Marshall Co. v. Ames, 373 Ill. 381, 26 N.E.2d 483, such occupation did not come under the law. The answer does not dispute such sum was paid, or that the occupation of petitio......