Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Roddewig
Decision Date | 29 August 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 4646.,4646. |
Citation | 24 F. Supp. 321 |
Parties | SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. v. RODDEWIG et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Joseph G. Gamble, of Des Moines, Iowa (Ralph L. Read, Alden B. Howland, and Joseph F. Rosenfield, all of Des Moines, Iowa, on the briefs), for complainant.
Charles Bookin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (John M. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., on the briefs), for defendants.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and DEWEY and BELL, District Judges.
This suit came on for hearing in open court at Des Moines, Iowa, on June 20, 1938, before a statutory three-judge court duly assembled, to hear the application for a temporary injunction. By agreement the motion to dismiss was submitted to be determined at the time the court considered the evidence on the merits. Evidence was introduced, arguments had and on June 21, 1938, also by agreement, the suit was submitted to be determined, subject to the motion, as a final hearing.
The court is abidingly convinced that the suit will have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction presented in the motion, but for the purpose of perfecting the record in the event an appellate court would care to pass upon the merits, this court by reference makes the following findings of fact:
The Facts.
Part of the evidence was by stipulation and those facts are accepted as established facts in the case. Oral and record evidence was also introduced and there is little, if any, dispute in that evidence. Also, to shorten the record, the court adopts as its findings of fact the following facts which were at the suggestion of the court kindly presented by the parties. Of these facts in the nature of requested findings of fact, we adopt the following submitted by the complainant and of record in the case:
Paragraphs or Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
We also adopt as true and correct the copy of the Personal Property "Use Tax" Act attached to complainant's original petition and marked Exhibit A.
The short facts are:
The complainant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, engaged in the business of retail merchandising. For many years it had sold property under a catalogue system of advertising its wares by mail through its principal operating office in the city of Chicago, Ill. Later it established retail stores and now has in the State of Iowa approximately 13 retail establishments, but conducts its mail order business as heretofore. Its main distributing places of business for such sales by catalogue are at Chicago and Minneapolis, Minn. The method of its mail order sales is set out in a stipulation and agreement of facts, as follows:
In 1937 the State of Iowa reenacted a retail sales tax act, Acts 47th Gen.Assem. Iowa, c. 196, which was effective by publication on April 1, 1937, providing for a tax of 2 per cent. on sales of tangible personal property made within the State of Iowa, and the same general assembly also passed as a complement thereto a "Use Tax" Act, Acts 47th Gen.Assem. Iowa c. 198, effective by publication on April 16, 1937. This latter act provides for a similar tax to that provided by the sales tax in amount on the use of any tangible personal property purchased on or after the effective date of the Act, but exempts from such tax property which has already paid the tax to Iowa or any other state with respect to its sale and use. Section 8 of the Act provides as follows:
And Section 21 is as follows:
By Section 22 the Iowa State Board of Assessment and Review is charged with the enforcement of the provisions of the Act.
Sears, Roebuck and Company entered the State of Iowa about the year 1928 and commenced to operate its retail merchandise business therein, and prior to commencing such business duly qualified as a foreign corporation by paying the license fee then exacted in complying with the act as a non-resident corporation.
One of the statutes of the State of Iowa in force at the time complainant entered the State of Iowa provided as follows: Code of Iowa, 1935.
The complainant has not attempted to or collected the use sales tax on its catalogue business as described above and has refused to comply with the law insofar as it affects such catalogue business. By reason of such act or failure to act on the part of the complainant, the Iowa State Board of Assessment and Review passed a resolution at its meeting held on the 30th day of March, 1938, wherein, after reciting the failure and neglect of the company to make such collection, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kimmey v. HA Berkheimer, Inc.
...by § 1341. Cf. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Sergeant, 337 F.Supp. 88, 89-90 (D.Kansas 1972) and Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Roddewig, 24 F.Supp. 321, 324-325 (S.D.Iowa 1938). Plaintiffs here do have a "plain, speedy and efficient remedy" in the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvan......
-
Carbonneau Industries, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids
...Service v. City of New York, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 870, 872; Guerra v. City of Philadelphia, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 791; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Roddewig, D.C., 24 F.Supp. 321, 324, 325; Nevada-California Electric Corporation v. Corbett, D.C., 22 F.Supp. 951, Furthermore, in its complaint the plaintif......
-
Phipps v. School Dist. of Pittsburgh, 7043.
...Co., 306 U.S. 531, 59 S.Ct. 689, 83 L.Ed. 965; Baker v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 10 Cir., 106 F.2d 525; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Roddewig, D.C., 24 F. Supp. 321; Nevada-California Electric Corp. v. Corbett, supra; Guerra v. City of Philadelphia, supra, all involving the amendment of Augu......
-
Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library
...liberally construed, as I think it should be, this particular statutory provision seems not applicable here. Cf. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Roddewig, D.C.Iowa, 24 F.Supp. 321. As a preliminary injunction was not prayed for by the plaintiff, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380, which requires a three-judge feder......