American Bridge Co. v. Smith, No. 38677.

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtVan Osdol
Citation179 S.W.2d 12
PartiesAMERICAN BRIDGE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. FORREST SMITH, State Auditor of the State of Missouri.
Decision Date07 February 1944
Docket NumberNo. 38677.
179 S.W.2d 12
AMERICAN BRIDGE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant,
v.
FORREST SMITH, State Auditor of the State of Missouri.
No. 38677.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Division One, February 7, 1944.
Rehearing Denied, March 6, 1944.
Motion to Transfer to Banc Overruled, April 3, 1944.

[179 S.W.2d 13]

Appeal from Cole Circuit Court.Hon. Frank Hollingsworth, Special Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

W.R. Mayne, N.W. Hartman and Fordyce, White, Mayne, Williams & Hartman for appellant.

(1) The jurisdiction of this appeal in this court is amply supported. Mo. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 12; Grant v. Trust Co., 108 S.W. (2d) 347; State ex rel. Martin v. Childress, 345 Mo. 495; Dietrich v. Brickey, 327 Mo. 189; State ex rel. v. Young, 327 Mo. 909; Foster v. Commission for the Blind, 327 Mo. 416. (2) The sale of fabricated structural steel from plants outside the State of Missouri to customers and consumers in the State of Missouri, f.o.b. plant or f.o.b. destination, is a retail sale made in commerce between a citizen of this state and a citizen of another state, and is exempt under the Missouri Sales Tax Act. Sec. 11409, R.S. 1939, as amended by Laws 1941, p. 702; Opinion of Attorney General Honorable Roy McKittrick, dated February 8, 1941; Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Smith, State Auditor, 164 S.W. (2d) 370; McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33; Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. Natl. Labor Relations Board, 303 U.S. 453, 82 L. Ed. 954; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Clark Bros. Coal Mining Co., 238 U.S. 456, 59 L. Ed. 1406; Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U.S. 124, 54 L. Ed. 965; National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601, 83 L. Ed. 1014; California Rice Industry v. Federal Trade Comm., 102 Fed. (2d) 716; Dahnke-Walker Mill Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282, 66 L. Ed. 239; Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 83 L. Ed. 441; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 80 L. Ed. 1160; McGoldrick v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 84 L. Ed. 360; McGoldrick v. Du Grenier, Inc., 84 L. Ed. 360; Jaegels Fuel Corp. v. Taylor, 8 N.Y.S. (2d) 456, 84 L. Ed. 695. (3) Application of the sales tax to transactions as made by appellant is unconstitutional in its application. Simpson v. O'Hara, 276 Mich. 55, 268 N.W. 809; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Fry, 277 Mich. 260, 269 N.W. 166; Koenig v. Truscott Boat Mfg. Co., 135 S.W. 514; International Text Book Co. v. Gillespie, 229 Mo. 397, 129 S.W. 922; Denison Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 120 S.E. 120; Federal Coal Co. v. United States Fuel Corp., 246 S.W. 528; Commonwealth v. Castner, 121 S.E. 984. (4) Sale of steel in the manner made by appellant is not a retail sale in this State within the meaning of the Missouri Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Act in question levies basically sales tax on sales "in this state." R.S. 1939, sec. 11408, as amended by Laws 1941, p. 701; Standard Oil Co. v. Department of Finance, 48 N.E. (2d) 514; Ayrshire Patoka Collieries Corp. v. Nudelman, 383 Ill. 345; Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., etc., v. Wright, 383 Ill. 354; Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. McKibbon, 383 Ill. 316. (5) Delivery to carriers of fabricated structural steel f.o.b. plant or f.o.b. destination outside of the State of Missouri constitutes delivery to the consignee and does not take the transaction out of interstate commerce so as to authorize the imposition of the Missouri State Sales Tax on such a transaction and the sale was not completed until the order was accepted and the goods were loaded. McLeod v. J.E. Dilworth Co., 171 S.W. (2d) 62; McLeod v. Reichman-Crosby Co., 171 S.W. (2d) 62. (6) The exemption from the Sales Tax Act specifically accorded to "such retail sales as may be made in commerce between this State and any other State of the Union" expresses a legislative attempt to exempt sales made in interstate commerce, and this whether or not such sales might constitutionally be taxed. Sec. 11409, R.S. 1939, as amended Laws 1941, p. 702; Laws 1937, p. 552, sec. 3; Laws 1935, p. 411, sec. 3; Laws 1933-1934 (Ex. Sess.), p. 155, sec. 3; State ex rel. Kansas City P. & L. Co. v. Smith, 111 S.W. (2d) 513, 342 Mo. 75; Dodd v. Independence Stove & Furnace Co., 51 S.W. (2d) 113. (7) Negotiation of sales of goods which are in another state for the purpose of introducing them to the state in which the negotiation is made, is interstate commerce. 11 Am. Jur., sec. 45, p. 44; Weeks v. United States, 245 U.S. 617, 62 L. Ed. 513; Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Sonman S.C. Co., 242 U.S. 120, 61 L. Ed. 188; United States v. Tucker, 188 Fed. 741; Bailey v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 184 Mo. App. 457; Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. United States Rubber Co., 156 Fed. 1; People ex rel. Hatch v. Riordan, 185 N.Y. 431, 77 N.E. 970.

William G. Marbury, J.W. Thurman, D.A. Thompson and Tyre Burton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

(1) Every retail sale in this State of tangible personal property is subject to a tax of two per cent of the purchase price. Sec. 11408, R.S. 1939, as amended by Laws 1941, p. 701; Sec. 11407, R.S. 1939, as amended by Laws 1941, p. 699. (2) Section 11409 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1939, is not a general exemption of interstate sales from taxation. Sec. 11409, R.S. 1939, as amended by Laws 1941, p. 702; Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Smith, 164 S.W. (2d) 370; City of Cape Girardeau v. Fred A. Groves Motor Co., 142 S.W. (2d) 1040; Hoke v. United States, 57 L. Ed. 523; Union R.T. Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194, 50 L. Ed. 150; State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 82 U.S. 300, 21 L. Ed. 179; James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 82 L. Ed. 155; Gwinn v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434, 83 L. Ed. 272, 281. (3) To construe Section 11409 as a general exemption of interstate sales from taxation would render the section void because it would violate the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution. Sec. 11409, R.S. 1939, as amended Laws 1941, p. 702; Erie R. Co. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188; Frost v. Corporation Comm. of Oklahoma, 278 U.S. 515, 73 L. Ed. 483; Southern R. Co. v. Green, 216 U.S. 400, 54 L. Ed. 536; State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Gehner, 27 S.W. (2d) 1; Artophone Corp. v. Coale, 133 S.W. (2d) 343; State ex rel. Mo. Portland Cement Co. v. Smith, 90 S.W. (2d) 405; State ex rel. Globe-Democrat Pub. Co. v. Gehner, 294 S.W. 1017, 216 Mo. 694; Pacific Railroad Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo. 17; State ex rel. v. Johnston, 214 Mo. 656; Automobile Gasoline Co. v. St. Louis, 32 S.W. (2d) 281. (4) A tax on interstate sales is valid so long as the tax does not constitute a burden upon interstate commerce. McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33, 60 S. Ct. 388; McGoldrick v. A.H. DuGrenier, Inc., 309 U.S. 70, 60 S. Ct. 404; Jagels "A Fuel Corporation" v. Taylor, 84 L. Ed. 415, 60 S. Ct. 589; Wiloil Oil Corp. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 168, 79 L. Ed. 838; United Autograph Register Co. v. McGoldrick, 21 N.E. (2d) 129. (5) No recovery can be had in appellate court on cause of action not pleaded. McMerty v. Morrison, 62 Mo. 140; Grant City, to use of O'Neil v. Salmon, 221 Mo. App. 853, 288 S.W. 88; Gadberry v. Bolton, 242 S.W. 688; McMurtrey v. Kopke, 250 S.W. 399; Munford v. Sheldon, 9 S.W. (2d) 907; Insurance Agency Co. v. Blossom, 231 S.W. 636; St. Louis v. Buselaki, 336 Mo. 693, 80 S.W. (2d) 853. (6) The parties are bound on appeal by the theory of the case adopted by them in the trial court. White v. Pierce, 213 S.W. 512; Foege v. Woestendiek, 201 Mo. App. 382, 212 S.W. 411; Scanlon v. Kansas City, 325 Mo. 125.

VAN OSDOL, C.


Action for a declaratory judgment to determine the taxability of certain sales under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act of Missouri (Article 24, Chapter 74, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1939, Mo. R.S.A., as amended and reenacted, Laws of Missouri 1941, at page 698).

The petition alleged that plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey; has its principal place of business at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and is engaged in the business of fabricating structural steel at various places without the State of Missouri, which products the plaintiff sells to customers for use or consumption in this state. The petition further alleged that all of the sales so made are in interstate commerce and so are not taxable under the Sales Tax Act, supra; that the defendant, Forrest Smith, State Auditor of Missouri, has otherwise contended, and is threatening to levy and enforce the payment of the tax. The petition prayed the court to settle, ascertain, determine and declare the rights, duties and obligations of the parties with respect to the matters arising by reason of the controversy. Pending the final termination of the action, taxes sought to be collected by defendant have been deposited in the hands of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cole County. The trial court found the issues for defendant, holding the sales to be subject to the Sales Tax Act, supra, and plaintiff has appealed.

As stated in the petition, plaintiff, a foreign corporation, fabricates structural steel products, and sells to customers who purchase its products for use or consumption in Missouri (and elsewhere). Plaintiff is licensed in Missouri to transact business as a foreign corporation, and maintains a sales office at St. Louis. No...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Borchers v. Borchers, No. 38353.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 7, 1944
    ...for a term somewhat less than a year. A witness for appellants stated the reasonable market value of the farm to be $35 per acre; another 179 S.W.2d 12 that, if the land were again sold, he would bid and pay $7000 and that he would make this bid only because he believes the farm to be worth......
  • In re Condemnation Proceedings v. Mansfield, No. 20879.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 3, 1947
    ...Co., 334 Mo. 672, 66 S.W. 2d 920; State ex rel. Klein v. Hughes, 351 Mo. 651, 173 S.W. 2d 877; American Bridge Co. v. Smith, 352 Mo. 616, 179 S.W. 2d 12; Rust v. Dental Board, 348 Mo. 616, 155 S.W. 2d 80. (3) Session Act of 1943 does not conflict with Kansas City Charter but is contemplated......
  • F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Gray, No. 7184
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 5, 1951
    ...Estate, 71 N.D. 545, 3 N.W.2d 797; Engstad v. Grand Forks County, 10 N.D. 54, 84 N.W. 577; American Bridge Co. v. Smith, 352 Mo. 616, 179 S.W.2d 12, 157 A.L.R. 798 and annotation. The purpose of the act under consideration is to levy a tax of two per cent on sales of nonexempt tangible pers......
  • Pratt-Gilbert Hardware Co. v. O'Neil, 4902
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • September 30, 1946
    ...here presented was before the Supreme Court of Missouri in the cases of American Bridge Co. v. Smith, 352 Mo. 616, 157 A.L.R. 798, 179 S.W.2d 12 and Bingley Coal Co. v. Smith, 352 Mo. 627, 179 S.W.2d 17. "In holding the Missouri sales tax void as applied to sales f. o. b. points outside the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Borchers v. Borchers, No. 38353.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 7, 1944
    ...for a term somewhat less than a year. A witness for appellants stated the reasonable market value of the farm to be $35 per acre; another 179 S.W.2d 12 that, if the land were again sold, he would bid and pay $7000 and that he would make this bid only because he believes the farm to be worth......
  • In re Condemnation Proceedings v. Mansfield, No. 20879.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 3, 1947
    ...Co., 334 Mo. 672, 66 S.W. 2d 920; State ex rel. Klein v. Hughes, 351 Mo. 651, 173 S.W. 2d 877; American Bridge Co. v. Smith, 352 Mo. 616, 179 S.W. 2d 12; Rust v. Dental Board, 348 Mo. 616, 155 S.W. 2d 80. (3) Session Act of 1943 does not conflict with Kansas City Charter but is contemplated......
  • F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Gray, No. 7184
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 5, 1951
    ...Estate, 71 N.D. 545, 3 N.W.2d 797; Engstad v. Grand Forks County, 10 N.D. 54, 84 N.W. 577; American Bridge Co. v. Smith, 352 Mo. 616, 179 S.W.2d 12, 157 A.L.R. 798 and annotation. The purpose of the act under consideration is to levy a tax of two per cent on sales of nonexempt tangible pers......
  • Pratt-Gilbert Hardware Co. v. O'Neil, 4902
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • September 30, 1946
    ...here presented was before the Supreme Court of Missouri in the cases of American Bridge Co. v. Smith, 352 Mo. 616, 157 A.L.R. 798, 179 S.W.2d 12 and Bingley Coal Co. v. Smith, 352 Mo. 627, 179 S.W.2d 17. "In holding the Missouri sales tax void as applied to sales f. o. b. points outside the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT