Dalton Adding Machine Company v. State Corporation Commission
| Decision Date | 22 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 190,190 |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 480,59 L.Ed. 797,236 U.S. 699 |
| Parties | DALTON ADDING MACHINE COMPANY, Appt., v. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Robert R. Prentis, William F. Rhea, and J. Richard Wingfield, Members of said Commission |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Thomas A. Banning and Samuel Walker Banning for appellant.
Mr. John Garland Pollard, Attorney General of Virginia, and Mr. Christopher B. Garnett for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of three judges, denying a preliminary injunction, as prayed in the appellant's bill. The bill alleges that the appellant is a Missouri corporation, having its factory in Missouri, that it obtains orders for its machines in Virginia through drummers, considers and accepts or rejects them in Missouri, and, if it accepts, forwards the machine from its factory. In some cases the possible customer is allowed to try a machine previously forwarded and in the hands of the Virginia agent, and if he is accepted as a purchaser and desires to keep it, is permitted to do so. The appellant contends that its business in Virginia is wholly interstate. A statute of Virginia requires foreign corporations doing business there to obtain a license from the state corporation commission, to pay a fee, etc., and it is alleged that the commission threatens to take proceedings to enforce the statute and the penalties provided for disobeying it against the appellant, contrary to article I., § 8, of the Constitution. The appellant further alleges that it has reason to fear and fears a multiplicity of proceedings and the imposition of many fines, and that it will suffer irreparable loss from even a temporary interference with its affairs, through loss of sales and prestige, help to its competitors, and encouragement of similar proceedings in other states. 213 Fed. 889.
The court below remarked that it was not contended that the statute was unconstitutional, but was alleged only that it was feared that it might be enforced in such a way as to contravene the commerce clause, and suggested that if proceedings should be instituted by the commission there would be a hearing before it, with a right to appeal to the supreme court of appeals, and, upon a proper showing, to take the case to this court, and that there was nothing to indicate that the commission would not give the appellant a fair hearing, or would attempt to enforce the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rieder v. Rogan
...warrants, are an insufficient ground for equity's intervention. See Shelton v. Platt, supra; Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. Virginia (1915) 236 U. S. 699, 35 S. Ct. 480, 59 L. Ed. 797. "The mere fact that the validity of the tax may be tested more conveniently by a bill in equity than by an a......
-
Henrietta Mills v. Rutherford County
...Sewing Machine Company v. Benedict, 229 U. S. 481, 485, 33 S. Ct. 942, 57 L. Ed. 1288; Dalton Adding Machine Company v. State Corporation Commission, 236 U. S. 699, 701, 35 S. Ct. 480, 59 L. Ed. 797; Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Weld County, 247 U. S. 282, 285, 38 S. Ct. 510, 62 L. Ed.......
-
Petroleum Exploration v. Public Service Commission of Kentucky
...Stat. 722, 723, 15 U.S.C. §§ 49, 50, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 49, 699, 35 S.Ct. 480, 59 L.Ed. 797. 16 Cf. Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 236 U.S. 35 S.Ct. 480, 59 L.Ed. 797. 17 Ky.Stat.Ann. § 3952-61, provides: 'Penalties.—Every officer, agent or employee of any utility as......
-
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle
...280, 44 L. Ed. 377; Boise Artesian Water Co. v. Boise, 213 U. S. 276, 29 S. Ct. 426, 53 L. Ed. 796; Dalton Add. Machine Co. v. State Corp., etc., 236 U. S. 699, 35 S. Ct. 480, 59 L. Ed. 797; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 35 S. Ct. 99, 59 L. Ed. 265; Kansas City, etc., ......