City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Coffee Company, Limited

Citation14 So. 502,46 La.Ann. 86
Decision Date01 January 1894
Docket Number11,334
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
PartiesCITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. NEW ORLEANS COFFEE COMPANY, LIMITED

APPEAL from the First City Court of New Orleans. Childress J.

Geo. W Flynn, Assistant City Attorney, and E. A. O'Sullivan City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Moise &amp Cahn, for Defendant and Appellee.

OPINION

PARLANGE, J.

The defendant corporation claims to be "a manufacturer of coffee," and to be as such exempt under Article 206 of the Constitution from the payment of a license.

The defendant corporation contends that by means of a secret non-patented process, it is enabled to make a selection of green coffees having the qualities required for the purpose intended, which coffees, after being subjected to manipulation, being roasted and being allowed to cool in a particular manner, produce certain brands of coffee, each having a recognizable taste and flavor.

The defendant corporation says and insists that no chemicals of any kind are used during the secret process, and it is upon the production of its different brands of roasted coffee that it relies to be held to be "a manufacturer of coffee."

We have considered the evidence and the pleadings with care, and we are satisfied that the defendant corporation does not claim that it is a manufacturer by reason of grinding coffee and thereby changing its form, and while some incidental statements to be found in the testimony might indicate that exceptionally the defendant corporation may grind the coffee which it manipulates, its claim to be a manufacturer of coffee is based wholly on the production of brands of unground roasted coffee.

These brands, as stated, are claimed to be the result as well as the object of the secret process above referred to, which process the defendant claims is valuable, $ 1000 having been offered for it.

Whatever this secret process may be, we are to decide whether the defendant corporation is a manufacturer, on the tangible results of the manipulation to which they subject green coffees, bearing in mind the assertion of the defendant corporation that it uses no chemicals, and that the coffee after the manipulation is still pure coffee.

The defendant corporation virtually admits that a "coffee roaster" is not a manufacturer, but denies that such a designation can properly be applied to it. A "coffee roaster" is testified by the witness for the defendant corporation to be a person "who takes a sack of coffee and simply puts it in a roaster and turns that coffee out after it is roasted."

Exemptions from taxation are strictly construed, the general rule being that every citizen must bear his share of the expenses of government. Is the defendant corporation a manufacturer? Admitting that it has a secret process for the selection of green coffees, the result of which is the production of "brands of coffee" suitable to different tastes and recognizable from each other, and admitting further its claims of careful and cleanly roasting and its other secret process of cooling the roasted coffee, is the result a manufactured article? We think not.

It is not every employment of labor which will make the thing upon which it is employed a manufacture. It has been held that the great and laborious pursuits of mining and ship building are not manufacturing occupations. In another order, this court has held that a maker of ice cream, even on a considerable scale, is not a manufacturer (New Orleans vs Mannessier, 32 An. 1075). In that case this court said that the mammoth kitchen of a hotel is not a manufactory. Yet, the confectionery and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Central Trust Co. of Illinois v. George Lueders & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 2 Marzo 1915
    ...court said: 'The attempt to magnify a confectionery, which is defendant's business, into a manufacture, must fail.' In City v. Coffee Co., 46 La.Ann. 86, 14 So. 502, was held that a corporation, which by careful and cleanly roasting and a secret process of cooling produced 'brands' of ungro......
  • In re I. Rheinstrom & Sons Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • 16 Junio 1913
    ... ... , canal or other public improvement company,' or ... 'any owner or operator of any rolling ... They were in the cases of ... City of New Orleans v. Mannessier, 32 La.Ann. 1075, ... and City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Coffee Co., ... Ltd, 46 La.Ann. 86, 14 So. 502 ... hand. It is now not so limited to one who makes by hand. It ... at least ... ...
  • Shreveport Creosoting Co., Ltd. v. City of Shreveport
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 27 Mayo 1907
    ... 44 So. 325 119 La. 637 SHREVEPORT CREOSOTING CO., Limited, v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT et al No. 16,580 Supreme Court ... Action ... by the Shreveport Creosoting Company, Limited, against the ... city of Shreveport and others ... 998; Martin v ... [119 La. 642] New Orleans, 38 La.Ann. 398, 58 Am ... Rep. 194; Carre v. New ... City of ... New Orleans v. New Orleans Coffee Co., 46 La.Ann ... 86, 14 So. 502; Carre v. City of New ... ...
  • Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 1949
    ...Co. v. George Lueders Co. 221 F. 829, 840, certiorari denied 238 U.S. 634, appeal dismissed 239 U.S. 11. Compare New Orleans v. New Orleans Coffee Co. Ltd. 46 La. Ann. 86; People v. Roberts, 145 N.Y. 375; Commonwealth v. Products Co. 297 Pa. 305. Of the two soft drink concerns included in t......
  • 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