Clark v. City of Titusville
| Citation | 22 S.Ct. 382,184 U.S. 329,46 L.Ed. 569 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1902 |
| Docket Number | No. 91,91 |
| Parties | L. S. CLARK, Plff. in Err. , v. CITY OF TITUSVILLE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Eugene Mackey for plaintiff in error.
Mr.George Frank Brown submitted the case for defendant in error.
This case is here on error to the supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania. It involves the constitutionality of an ordinance of the city of Titusville imposing a license tax upon the merchants of the city. The particular contention is that the ordinance violates the equality prescribed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that it divides the merchants into arbitrary classes.
The trial court sustained the ordinance, and its judgment was affirmed by the supreme court upon the opinion delivered by the trial court.
The case was submitted upon a case stated in the nature of a special verdict, from which it appeared that the city was duly incorporated, and passed on June 25, 1888, the ordinance complained of. The provisions of the ordinance were set out, and it was stipulated that if the court should be of the opinion that the ordinance was valid a fine should be entered against the defendant (plaintiff in error) for the total of the taxes prescribed.
The ordinance imposes a license tax upon persons who carry on certain occupations in the city. Persons in different occupations pay different amounts, and persons in the same occupation are classified by maximum and minimum amount of sales. For instance, persons dealing in merchandise are classified as follows, and we quote from the opinion of the trial court:
Class Business. Tax
1................ Over $60,000..................... $100.00
2............... $50,000 to 60,000........................ 80.00
3................ 40,000 to 50,000........................ 70.00
4................ 30,000 to 40,000........................ 60.00
5................ 20,000 to 30,000........................ 50.00
6................ 10,000 to 20,000........................ 35.00
7................. 5,000 to 10,000........................ 25.00
8................. 2,500 to 5,000........................ 15.00
9................. 1,000 to 2,500........................ 10.00
10....................... 1,000......................... 5.00
Wholesale
1............... $100,000 and upwards....................... $60.00
2................. 60,000 to 100,000.................... 50.00
3................. 50,000 to 60,000.................... 40.00
4................. 40,000 to 50,000.................... 35.00
5................. 30,000 to 40,000.................... 30.00
6................. 20,000 to 30,000.................... 25.00
7................. 10,000 to 20,000.................... 20.00
8.................. 5,000 to 10,000.................... 15.00
9.................. 2,500 to 5,000.................... 10.00
10........................ 2,500.................... 5.00
It is with this classification that we have immediate concern, because the plaintiff is a retail grocer. He was assessed in the sixth class in 1895, and in the seventh class in 1896.
The objection that plaintiff makes to the ordinance is that it classifies by amount or value with the result (1) that the lowest amount or value of property of a class 'is required to pay the same amount of taxes with the highest amount or value of property therein;' (2) that the differences are not in kind, but only in amount, or value, and that the taxes decrease in rate or ratio as the value of the class increases; (3) that the so-called classes are subdivisions of a class, and taxes are imposed upon such subdivisions without regard to a common ratio, either as between the several subdivisions, or as between the members of each of the subdivisions. These objections are but the expression of the effect of classification by amount, and have been made before and considered before by this court, and the judgment has been adverse to the contention of plaintiff in error. We do not think that it is necessary to review the cases or enter again into the reasoning upon which they were based.
Classification by amount came up for consideration and decision in Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 42 L. ed. 1037, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594, and was sustained. That case, plaintiff in error recognizes, may be urged against his contention, and attempts to limit its decision to the power of a state over inheritances, and to explain by that power, not only the taxes
Statement by Mr. Justice McKenna:
James McKeon was a retail merchant in Springfleld, Massachusetts, and became indebted to plaintiffs in error in the sum of taxes by the amount of the legacy. This,
The indebtedness being overdue, Frank J. The contentions of the parties in the case were extremely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heiner v. Donnan
...277 U. S. 32, 42-44, 48 S. Ct. 423, 72 L. Ed. 770. 24 Other types of graduated taxes have been upheld in Clark v. Titusville, 184 U. S. 329, 331, 22 S. Ct. 382, 46 L. Ed. 569; Metropolis Theater Co. v. Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 69-70, 33 S. Ct. 441, 57 L. Ed. 730. And see Salomon v. State Tax ......
-
Louisville Gas Electric Co v. Coleman
...whose gross sales were $1,000, and a tax of $10 upon those similarly situated whose sales were $1,001, Clark v. Titusville, 184 U. S. 329, 331, 22 S. Ct. 382, 46 L. Ed. 569;5 an ordinance which laid a tax of $1,000 upon theaters whose admission was $1 or more, but only $400 upon those simil......
-
Stewart Dry Goods Co v. Lewis Levy v. Same Penney Co v. Same Kroger Grocery Baking Co v. Same 8212 457
...Court, but none of them rules this case. Those claimed to be particularly pertinent will be briefly noted. In Clark v. Titusville, 184 U.S. 329, 22 S.Ct. 382, 46 L.Ed. 569, the tax levied consisted of a flat fee exacted for a license which entitled the merchant to conduct business for the e......
-
New York Rapid Transit Corporation v. City of New York Brooklyn Queens Transit Corporation v. Same
...to the cost of governmental supervision and protection than the annual profit and loss statement. In Clark v. Titusville, 184 U.S. 329, at page 334, 22 S.Ct. 382, 384, 46 L.Ed. 569 we rejected an equal protection objection to a license tax on merchants, which we said was 'a tax on the privi......