Chalker v. Birmingham Ry Co
| Decision Date | 21 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 283,283 |
| Citation | 39 S.Ct. 366,63 L.Ed. 748,249 U.S. 522 |
| Parties | CHALKER et al. v. BIRMINGHAM & N. W. RY. CO. et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. C. E. Pigford, of Jackson, Tenn., and Watson E. Coleman, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. R. F. Spragins, of Jackson, Tenn., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 523-525 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The point for determination is the liability of J. W. Wright, Jr., a citizen and resident of Alabama with his chief office therein, who engaged in the business of constructing a railroad in Tennessee, for the tax prescribed by section 4 of 'An act to provide revenue for the state of Tennessee and the counties and municipalities thereof,' approved May 1, 1909 (Acts of Tenn. 1909, c. 479, pp. 1726, 1727, 1735), which provides:
* * *
'Each foreign construction company, with its chief office outside of this state, operating or doing business in this state, directly or by agent, or by any subletting contract, each, per annum, in each county . . . $100.00
'Each domestic construction company and each foreign construction company, having its chief office in this state, doing business in this state, each, per annum, in each county . . . $25.00
'The above tax shall be paid by persons, firms, or corporations engaged in the business of constructing bridges, waterworks, railroads, street-paving construction work, or other structures of a public nature.'
Replying to the claim that the statute in effect discriminates against citizens of other states the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in Wright v. Jackson Const. Co., 138 Tenn. 145, 152, 153, 196 S. W. 488, 490, said:
With this conclusion we are unable to agree. Accepting the construction placed upon it by the Supreme Court, we think the quoted section does discriminate between citizens of Tennessee and those of other states by imposing a higher charge on the latter than it does on the former, contrary to section 2, art. 4, of the federal Constitution:
'The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Co. v. Dyer, Motor Vehicle Com'r
... ... Farms v. Eyck, 80 L.Ed. 675; Liggett Co. v ... Baldridge, 73 L.Ed. 204; Louisville Gas Co. v ... Coleman, [179 Miss. 138] 277 U.S. 32; Chalker v. Ry ... Co., 249 U.S. 522; Bethlehem Motors Co. v ... Flynt, 65 L.Ed. 372; Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 64 ... L.Ed. 989; Airway, etc., ... ...
-
Gully v. Wilmut Gas & Oil Co
...of an owner is not adequate for a basis of classification. Ballard v. Miss. Cotton Oil Co., 81 Miss. 507, 34 So. 533; Chalker v. Birmingham, etc., Ry. Co., 249 U.S. 522; Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412; Ins. Co. Connecticut, 185 U.S. 366; Dist. v. Brooke, 214 U.S. 151; Ry. Co. v. Ellis,......
-
Miller v. Lamar Life Ins. Co.
... ... It grants an ... immunity to domestic corporations not granted to foreign ... corporations ... Chalker ... v. Birmingham R. R., 249 U.S. 522, 63 L.Ed. 748, 39 S.Ct ... 366; Travis v. Yale Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60, 40 S.Ct ... 228, 64 L.Ed. 460 ... ...
-
Barnes v. Jones
... ... shares of a corporation so situated upon a basis different ... from that of a local corporation. Both must be taxed alike ... Chalker v. Birmingham, etc., R. R. Co., 249 U.S ... 522; Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412; Insurance ... Co. v. Conn., 185 U.S. 366; R. R. Co. v ... ...
-
The Dormant Commerce Clause: the Origin Story and the "considerable Uncertainties"- 1824 to 1945
...dealer for a New York market. That had clearly not been the intent of the New York law, but it arguably had that impact. [157]Seelig, 249 U.S. at 522. In Brown-Forman, a modern case, the Court cited Seelig in striking down a New York law that required liquor distributors throughout the Unit......