Bingaman v. Golden Eagle Western Lines
Decision Date | 30 March 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 520,520 |
Citation | 80 L.Ed. 928,297 U.S. 626,56 S.Ct. 624 |
Parties | BINGAMAN, Com'r of Revenue of New Mexico, et al. v. GOLDEN EAGLE WESTERN LINES, Inc |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Mexico.
Messrs. J. R. Modrall, Quincy D. Adams, and Frank H. Patton, all of Santa Fe , N.M., for appellants.
Messrs. Ivan Bowen, of Minneapolis, Minn., E. R. Wright, of Santa Fe , N.M., and Earl A. Bagby, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Appellee, a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, is a common carrier operating a line of busses over the public highways of several states, including New Mexico, its business being limited to interstate transportation. It does no intrastate business in New Mexico, and expressly disclaims any intention of doing any such busi ess in the future. The busses are propelled by gasoline, which, so far as this case is concerned, is purchased in another state, placed in tanks attached to the busses, and transported and used exclusively in interstate commerce.
A statute of the state (chapter 176, § 2, Session Laws of 1933) imposes 'an excise tax of five cents (5¢) per gallon upon the sale and use of all gasoline and motor fuel.' Section 3 of the act prohibits any 'distributor' from importing, receiving, using, selling or distributing any motor fuel, unless such distributor is the holder of an uncancelled annual license issued by the state comptroller. For the license a fee is exacted of $25 for each distribution station or place of business or agency. A 'distributor,' as defined by section 1 of the act, includes a corporation consuming and using in the state any motor fuel purchased in and brought from another state. For failure to comply with the statute penalties are incurred. The effect of the statute is to compel a common carrier engaged exclusively in interstate transportation to procure a licnese as a 'distributor' and pay an excise tax upon the use of motor fuel purchased in, and brought from, another state and used only in such transportation.
By an act, passed in 1931, Laws 1931, c. 31, provision is made for refunding taxes collected upon the purchase of gasoline in certain specified quantities and used for other purposes than the operation of motor vehicles upon the streets and highways of the state.
This suit was brought against appellants, state officers, to enjoin the threatened enforcement of the foregoing statutory provisions, together with the penal provisions connected therewith, on the ground, among others, that they constitute a regulation of interstate commerce in contravention of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The case was heard by the lower court, con- sisting of three judges as the federal law requires (Jud.Code § 266, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380), and a decree entered in accordance with the prayer of the bill. Golden Eagle Western Lines, Inc., v. Bingaman (D.C.) 14 F.Supp. 17.
The case turns upon the question whether the pertinent statutory provisions exact a charge as compensation to the state for the use of its highways, or impose an excise tax for the use of an instrumentality of interstate commerce. If the former, the tax should be sustained; if the latter, it clearly contravenes the commerce clause and must be held bad. Helson and Randolph v. Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245, 49 S.Ct. 279, 73 L.Ed. 683, and cases cited. The state supreme court has construed the provisions in George E. Breece Lumber Co. v. Mirabal, 34 N.M. 643, 287 P. 699, 84 A.L.R. 827, and Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc., v. Lujan, 36 N.M. 64, 8 P.(2d) 103; and the court below, rightly concluding that it was bound by this construction,* thought that it settled the matter against the validity of the tax. With this view we agree.
The New Mexico decisions dealt with an earlier act, the terms of which,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Brown
... ... who travel over it (see Bingaman v. Golden Eagle Western ... Lines, 297 U.S. 626, 628, 56 ... ...
-
State Board of Equalization v. Blind Bull Coal Co.
...are exempt from tax. 11 Amer. Jur. 67; notes in 6 L. R. A. 579 and 60 L. R. A. 660; Helson v. Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245; Bingaman v. Golden Lines, 297 U.S. 626; v. Port of Nobile, 127 U.S. 640. An occupation tax on interstate commerce is invalid. Cooney v. Tel. Co., 294 U.S. 384; Henneford v. ......
-
Comm'r of Corps. & Taxation v. Ford Motor Co.
...Cement Co. v. Massachusetts, 268 U.S. 203, 45 S.Ct. 477, 69 L.Ed. 916, 44 A.L.R. 1219;Bingaman v. Golden Eagle Western Lines, Inc., 297 U.S. 626, 56 S.Ct. 624, 80 L.Ed. 928;Best & Co. Inc. v. Maxwell, 61 S.Ct. 334, 85 L.Ed. 275, decided December 23, 1940. The Somerville branch was engaged i......
-
Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Henneford
... ... Respondent purchases from the Western ... Electric Company, a New York corporation ... state lines.' ... * * * ... * * * ... communication. In Bingaman v. Golden Eagle Western ... Lines, 297 U.S. 626, 56 ... ...