Banker Brothers Company v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Citation56 L.Ed. 168,32 S.Ct. 38,222 U.S. 210
Decision Date04 December 1911
Docket NumberNo. 72,72
PartiesBANKER BROTHERS COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Edward J. Kent and Henry A. Miller for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. George H. Calvert, James M. Magee, Donald Thompson, Murdoch Kendrick, and John C. Bell for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 211 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court:

The Banker Brothers Company, a corporation doing business in Pittsburg, was charged, as retail vendors, with a tax of 1 per cent on $351,000 on sales of automobiles to persons in Pennsylvania, under a statute of that state. It denied liability on the ground that the sales were interstate transactions. A decision of that point involves the question as to whether Banker Brothers Company acted as principal or as agent of a New York manufacturer.

It appears that the George N. Pierce Company was engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles in Buffalo, and in 1905 made a contract by which it agreed 'to build for and sell automobiles to Banker Brothers Company at 20 per cent less than list prices. Deliveries to be f. o. b. Buffalo as soon as practicable after order for deliveries are received. Payments to be made in cash.'

The Banker Brothers Company kept no machines in stock except those used for demonstration, and were allowed to sell only within a restricted territory on terms stipulated by the manufacturer. The purchaser of the machine was to pay at least 10 per cent when he signed a printed form addressed to Banker Brothers Company, requesting it 'to enter my order for _____ motor car, for which I agree to pay the list price, f. o. b. factory, as follows: $_____ upon signing this order, and the balance upon delivery of the car to me.'

The name of the Pierce Company did not appear anywhere on this printed form furnished by it, but when the Banker Brothers Company accepted the order, it remitted the cash to the Pierce Company. If the latter accepted the order, it agreed thereupon to make the automobile and ship it, drawing on Banker Brothers Company for the balance of the list price, less 20 per cent, with bill of lading attached. The Banker Brothers Company, on paying the draft, took up the bill of lading, received from the carrier an automobile which, though shipped in interstate commerce, had become at rest in the state of Pennsylvania. Banker Brothers Company had the title, and delivered it to the buyer on his paying the balance of the purchase money. Compare Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U. S. 124, 54 L. ed. 965, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 264, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 649. The written contract was silent on the subject, but it was stipulated that the Pierce Company warranted the machine direct to the purchaser.

It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Chassanoil v. City of Greenwood
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1933
    ... ... R ... Co. (Kan.), 254 P. 380; Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 ... U.S. 37, 71 L.Ed. 527 ... Somerville ... Company case and the case of Osborne v. State of ... Florida, ... v. Speed, 192 U.S. 500, 48 L.Ed ... 538; Banker Bros. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 222 U.S. 210, ... 56 L.Ed ... ...
  • Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • October 3, 1936
    ...506, 43 S.Ct. 643, 67 L.Ed. 1095. And as that rule applies whether the burden falls directly or indirectly (Banker Bros. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 222 U.S. 210, 32 S.Ct. 38, 56 L.Ed. 168), it is not material whether the tax is upon the sale and delivery or upon the We find no ground in this case......
  • Goldrick v. Coal Mining Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1940
    ...which challenged the decision of the state court as not in accord with applicable decisions of this Court in Banker Brothers v. Pennsylvania, 222 U.S. 210, 32 S.Ct. 38, 56 L.Ed. 168; Wiloil Corporation v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 169, 55 S.Ct. 358, 79 L.Ed. Chapter 815 of the New York Laws of......
  • Dorsett v. Overstreet
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1944
    ... ... 116, 189 So. 186, the same court had ... held a company taxable which had ordered 'equipment ... direct from ... L.Ed. 311; Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v ... Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18, 11 S.Ct. 876, 35 L.Ed. 613; ... Ficklen v ... Lott, 8 Wall. 148, 19 L.Ed ... 387; Banker Bros. [Co.] v. Pennsylvania, supra [222 ... U.S. 210, 32 ... ...
  • 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