A.B.C. Electrotype Co. v. Ames

Decision Date27 October 1936
Docket NumberGen. No. 23597.
Citation364 Ill. 360,4 N.E.2d 476
PartiesA. B. C. ELECTROTYPE CO. et al. v. AMES, Director of Finance, et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court


Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Walter J. La Buy, judge.

Suit by the A. B. C. Electrotype Company and others against K. L. Ames, Director of Finance, and others. From an adverse judgment, the defendants appeal.


WILSON, J., dissenting.Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen. (Montgomery S. Winning, of Springfield, and William C. Clausen, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

John R. McSweeney, of Chicago (Harry A. Silverstein and Ben Copple, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

SHAW, Justice.

Plaintiffs (appellees) are engaged in making electrotypes, stereotypes, and matrices for the use of their customers, the products being reproductions of type or patterns supplied by the customers. It appears from the record that an electrotype or stereotype is a reproduction cast in metal and mounted on a wooden base. A matrix is a reproduction made on blotting paper which the customer has his printer use by pouring melted type metal thereon, thus obtaining metal reproductions which can be used on printing presses. Printers, newspapers, and advertisers use this means of making further reproductions, insuring uniformity in printing, and permitting the making of large quantities of printed matter from one setting of type or one pattern. The department of finance, through its director, made a ruling which made the retailers' occupation tax applicable to plaintiffs' business, and this litigation started by complaint to enjoin the collection of that tax. There was a complaint, answer, and agreed statement of facts, and there is nothing in dispute except the applicability of the act. It clearly appears that except for salvage value the materials involved are of no use to any one other than the customer for whom the stereotype or electrotype is made, and that the salvage value is nothing in case of matrices and almost nothing in case of electrotypes and stereotypes. In the process of manufacture these materials represent from 5 to 12 per cent. of the sum paid by the customer who furnishes the type matter for reproduction. The trial court entered a decree in conformity with the prayer of the bill, and this appeal is prosecuted by the department of finance.

The trial court held, and we agree, that there is no substantial difference in principle between this case and Burgess Co. v. Ames, 359...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Voss v. Gray
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 2 Mayo 1941
    ... ... subject to retailers' occupation tax. A.B.C ... Electrotype Co. v. Ames (Ill.) 4 N.E.2d 476 ...          The ... Retailers' Occupation Tax Act is ... ...
  • Svithiod Singing Club v. McKibbin
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 18 Noviembre 1942
    ...supra; Babcock v. Nudelman, 367 Ill. 626, 12 N.E.2d 635;Adair Printing Co. v. Ames, 364 Ill. 342, 4 N.E.2d 481;A. B. C. Electrotype Co. v. Ames, 364 Ill. 360, 4 N.E.2d 476;Burgess Co. v. Ames, 359 Ill. 427, 194 N.E. 565. With these rules in mind we approach the problem whether appellants ar......
  • Mahon v. Nudelman
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 15 Septiembre 1941
    ... ... v. Ames, 359 Ill. 427, 194 N.E. 565;Adair Printing Co. v. Ames, 364 Ill. 342, 4 N.E.2d 481;A. B. C ... ...
  • Steinke v. Sztanka
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 27 Octubre 1936
  • 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