American Mfg. Co. v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 14 November 1911
• Citation: 238 Mo. 267,142 S.W. 297
• Parties: AMERICAN MFG. CO. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

142 S.W. 297

238 Mo. 267

AMERICAN MFG. CO. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 14, 1911.

On Rehearing, December 16, 1911.

1. COMMERCE (§ 77)—INTERSTATE COMMERCE —TAXATION—ORIGINAL PACKAGES.

Under Const. U. S. art. 1, § 10, providing that no state shall without the consent of Congress levy any impost duties on any exports or imports, jute butts imported by a manufacturer to be made into bags cannot, while remaining in their original packages, be taxed, unless they have been held longer than a reasonable time for their manufacture.

2. COMMERCE (§ 64)—INTERSTATE COMMERCE —TAXATION.

A license tax imposed on goods manufactured within the state and sold to persons outside the state is not in violation of Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8, delegating to Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce among the several states, for such tax is not a tax on interstate commerce.

3. COMMERCE (§ 64)—LICENSE TAXES—CONSTRUCTION OF ORDINANCE.

St. Louis Ordinance, § 2198, providing that there shall be levied and collected an ad valorem tax on all merchandise situated within the limits of the city, and every merchant, mercantile firm, or corporation shall pay a license tax of $1 on each $1,000 of sales, being a revenue law, should receive a reasonably strict construction, and so does not apply to sales to nonresidents of property manufactured or remaining without the state, for a sale by a merchant or manufacturer ordinarily means the delivery of the goods so sold at the place of the vendor's business, and, as so construed, is not an interference with interstate commerce.

Ferriss and Woodson, JJ., dissenting in part.

In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge.

Action by the American Manufacturing Company against the City of St. Louis. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for partial relief, both parties appeal. Reversed, with directions.

This suit was brought to recover $1,578.26 taxes paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation, licensed to transact business in Missouri; and between the first Monday in March and the first Monday in June, 1908, maintained an office and operated a factory in the defendant city, for the purpose of manufacturing bagging. Defendant is an incorporated city of this state, containing more than 300,000 inhabitants.

Pursuant to the powers enumerated in sections 9856 and 9857, R. S. of Missouri 1909, the defendant city enacted the following ordinance to raise revenue for its support: "Sec. 2198. Ad valorem and additional tax—rate—time of payment. There shall be levied and collected on the value of the largest amount of all goods, wares and merchandise stated as aforesaid an ad valorem tax of one-fifth of one percentum on the value of all such goods, wares and merchandise, situated within the limits of the city, for municipal purposes. This tax shall be paid to license collector on or before the first day of July in each year, together with the license which shall be paid every year by the merchant, mercantile firm or corporation (in addition to the per centum herein-before stated) of one dollar on each one thousand dollars or fractional part thereof, of sales made by such merchant, mercantile firm or corporation, provided that no license shall be issued under the provisions of this article for a less sum than five dollars, which sum shall be paid by each merchant, mercantile firm or corporation doing a business of five thousand dollars or less per annum."

To enable the defendant city to collect from plaintiff such taxes as it was entitled to under this ordinance, plaintiff made the following return of its property and business for the year 1908:

                      Raw Materials.                 Value.         Tax
                1. Imported jute butts in original
                    package, imported by
                    plaintiff for the purpose
                    of being manufactured by
                    plaintiff into bagging........... $  75,855.00     $ 735.79
                2. Domestic goods to be used
                    for like purposes................    11,635.26       112.86
                3. Tools, machinery and appliances...    60,000.00       582.00
                4. Merchandise and finished
                    products..........................  289,041.65      2,805.58
                                                       ____________   __________
                    Total.............................  $436,531.91    $4,236.23
                                                        ===========   ==========
                   Aggregate Amount of Sales
                1. Sales made through office in
                    city of St. Louis, and shipped
                    from stock in said city
                    to points in the state of
                    Missouri ..........................   59,624.40        59.64
                2. Sales made through St. Louis
                    office and delivered from
                    stock in St. Louis to purchasers
                    in other states....................  553,848.44       553.85
                3. Sales made through office in
                    St. Louis and shipped from
                    stock manufactured in New
                    York City and at time of
                    sale in Galveston, Texas...........  872,699.55       872.70
                                                                       _________
                    Total tax on sales.................                $1,486.19
                                                                        ========
                    Total license tax on property
                      and sales.........................               $5,722.42
                

In addition to taxes in the sum of $3,556.08 which plaintiff concedes to be legal, the defendant through its taxing officers levied and collected from plaintiff, upon the aforesaid return, certain items of taxes and licenses, the validity of which is challenged in plaintiff's petition upon the grounds hereinafter named:

(1) An item of $735.79 of ad valorem taxes upon "imported jute butts in original packages, imported by plaintiff for the purpose of being manufactured into bagging," is challenged on the ground that such jute butts while so held in original packages were not taxable by this state, nor by the defendant as a municipality thereof, under section 10, art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that: "No state shall without the consent of Congress lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws."

(2) An item of $553.85 collected as a license tax on goods sold through plaintiff's St. Louis office and delivered from its stock in St. Louis to purchasers in other states is challenged on the ground that said license tax is prohibited by paragraph 3, § 8, art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, granting to Congress the exclusive power "to regulate commerce * * * among the several states."

(3) An item of $872.70 collected as a license tax upon goods sold through plaintiff's St. Louis office, but manufactured, shipped, and supplied from plaintiff's factory in New York, to purchasers in the state of Texas, and not brought into the state of Missouri, is challenged on the like ground that it is in violation of paragraph 3, § 8, art. 1, of the federal Constitution.

Defendant collected the three items of taxes last hereinbefore mentioned, aggregating $2,161.34. Payment thereof being made under duress and to avoid prosecution under defendant's ordinance, and the defendant having received into its treasury $1,578.26 of said taxes, this action is brought to recover same.

The circuit court of St. Louis city, in which the case was tried, held that the last-named license tax, to wit, $872.70, on goods shipped directly from New York to Texas, was invalid, and gave judgment for the plaintiff on that item, but made a further finding that the other two items of taxes complained of were legal, and gave judgment for defendant on those items. From this judgment both parties prosecute their separate appeals to this court.

Judson & Green and Geo. R. Lockwood, for plaintiff. L. E. Walther and A. H. Roudebush, for defendant.

BROWN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

1. To defeat the ad valorem tax levied upon jute butts in original packages imported from India, plaintiff relies mainly upon the rule of law announced in the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. Maryland, 25 U. S. (12 Wheat.) 419, 6 L. Ed. 678, declaring invalid an act of a state Legislature which provided for a license tax upon persons engaged in the business of selling imported goods in original packages.

The lack of power on the part of a state or a municipality thereof to levy an import tax on goods shipped into the United States is too clear for controversy. The exclusive power to levy such tax is conferred upon the federal government as one of the methods whereby it may raise revenue to execute the numerous powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

The question of how far a state or a municipality of a state may go in levying taxes upon goods imported into the United States without infringing upon the right of the federal government has on numerous occasions been before the courts; and, there being no statute law properly defining the respective powers of the states and the nation in...