Commonwealth v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 01 March 1912
• Docket Number: 169-1911
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Williamson, 48 Pa.Super. 561 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1912)
• Parties: Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Williamson
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

48 Pa.Super. 561

Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Williamson

No. 169-1911

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

March 1, 1912

Argued October 13, 1911

Appeal by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 5, Phila. Co.-1911 No. 771, for defendant on case stated in suit of Commonwealth v. William W. Williamson, trading as Purock Water Company.

Case stated to determine liability for mercantile license tax.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant on case stated.

Affirmed.

Murdoch Kendrick, with him Joseph Tunney, for appellant. -- The distillation of ordinary filtered natural water by a mechanical process for the purpose of vending the same is not " manufacture" such as to exempt the defendant as a manufacturer from the payment of a mercantile license tax Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609 (7 S.Ct. 1240); People v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 99 N.Y. 181; Norris v. Com., 27 Pa. 494; Dudley v. Aqueduct Corporation, 100 Mass. 183; Hittinger v Westford, 135 Mass. 258; Com. v. Electric Light & Power Co., 145 Pa. 105; Com. v. Arrott Mills Co., 145 Pa. 69.

T. R. White, for appellee. -- One who manufactures an article and sells it at the place of manufacture is not liable to a mercantile license tax: Com. v. Gillinder, 12 Pa. Dist. 635; New Mercantile Tax Law, 9 Pa. Dist. 117; Com. v. Thomas Potter, Sons & Co., 159 Pa. 583.

It seems to us almost beyond reasonable argument that Purock Water, when finally produced as described, is a different article from city water, and is in fact a manufactured product: Com v. Juniata Coke Co., 157 Pa. 507; Com. v. Electric Light, Heat & Power Co., 193 Pa. 245; Com. v. Gormly, 173 Pa. 586; Com. v. Keystone Bridge Co., 156 Pa. 500; State v. American Sugar Refining Co., 108 La. 603 (32 So. 965); Schriefer v. Wood, 21 F. Cases, 737, Case No. 12,481; People v. Ice Co., 99 N.Y. 181.

Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head, Beaver and Porter, JJ.

OPINION

PORTER, J.

The Board of Mercantile Appraisers having assessed a mercantile license tax against the defendant, as a " retail vendor of, or dealer in, goods, wares and merchandise; " under the supposed authority of the Act of May 2, 1899, P. L. 184, the defendant appealed from that assessment to the court below. The parties agreed upon the facts as to the character of the business carried on by the defendant, in a case stated, which will appear in the report of our decision and need not be recited at length in this opinion. The court below entered judgment in favor of the defendant, and the commonwealth appeals.

The defendant maintains, as is agreed upon in the case stated, " a large and expensive plant for producing a pure water for household consumption, which is manufactured or produced in the following described manner and is sold under the trade name Purock Water." The process by which the water is purified is set forth at length and in detail in the case stated, and may be thus briefly summarized. Ordinary city filtered water is introduced into a boiler and by the application of heat is transformed into steam, from the boiler the steam passes into a still, which consists of coils of pipe within a metal shell, the pipe being surrounded by circulating water; the steam is condensed in the still and the resulting water is passed through a cell of granulated charcoal and from thence into a glass lined tank. Before entering the tank the water is mingled with air piped from outside of the building and passed through a filter of absorbent cotton, to purify it. From the glass tank the water passes through a block tin pipe into a filling machine where it is automatically bottled. When the water is converted into steam, all impurities less volatile than water are left behind, in the boiler. In the process of distillation all the vegetable gases which may have been combined with the water in its original state are eliminated by a careful adjustment of pressure in the still, and the water when bottled is free from any contaminating matter. All orders for the water are taken at the factory and all deliveries made from there. No store or warehouse of any kind is maintained, other than the building where the water is produced as above stated.

The question to be determined is whether this appellee is a " dealer" within the meaning of the statute, and so liable to be taxed on his business. The meaning of the term " dealer," when used in statutes of this character had been judicially determined prior to the act of May 2, 1899, and the word must be assumed to have been used in the sense in which it had been interpreted by the court of last resort, in construing earlier legislation: Com. v. Thomas Potter, Sons & Co., 159 Pa. 583; Com. v. Bailey, Banks & Biddle Co., 20 Pa.Super. 210; Com. v. Pocono Mountain Ice Co., 23 Pa.Super. 267; Com. v. Gormly, 173 Pa. 586. In the case last cited the language of Black, J., in Norris v. Com., 27 Pa. 494, was quoted with approval: " The meaning of the statute is perfectly clear. The legislature understood the...