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

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

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

[142 S.W. 298]

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...