Duke Power Co. v. Query
Decision Date | 11 April 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 3197,3198.,3197 |
Citation | 10 F. Supp. 669 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Parties | DUKE POWER CO. v. QUERY et al. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. v. SAME. |
Haynsworth & Haynsworth, of Greenville, S. C., and W. S. O'B. Robinson, J. C. McGowan, and J. H. Marion, all of Charlotte, N. C., for plaintiffs.
Jno. M. Daniel, Atty. Gen. for S. C., and J. Fraser Lyon, Gen. Counsel, of Columbia, S. C., for defendants.
These are consolidated actions at law, in which the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendant South Carolina Tax Commission certain taxes paid under protest as assessed by said commission under the South Carolina Electric Power Tax Act of May 9, 1931, 37 St. at Large, p. 357, § 1 (section 2558, Code 1932), entitled: "An Act to Raise Revenue for the Support of the State Government by the Imposition of an Excise Tax Upon Electric Power Generated and Sold Within This State," and providing as follows:
The right to recovery set out in the complaint is the allegation that "the act complained of and the assessment and the collection of the taxes as hereinafter complained of, deprived the plaintiff of its property and denied to it the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution."
The defendants demurred on the ground that no cause of action has been stated, and argument has been heard on the demurrers, with full consideration of the exhaustive briefs filed.
The effort is made in argument to differentiate the instant cases from the attack upon the Electric Power Tax Act made in the consolidated cases of South Carolina Power Company v. South Carolina Tax Commission, Broad River Power Company v. Query and Lexington Water Power Company v. Query on application for interlocutory injunction in each case (referred to as "The Power Tax Case"), decided by a statutory three-judge court, and reported in (D. C.) 52 F.(2d) 515.
This court, upon full consideration, is unable to find any point presented here which has not been fully considered in the opinion in the Power Tax Case, except the alternative suggestion that plaintiffs are entitled in the computation of the sales tax provided by subsection (c) of section 1 to a credit of the full generation tax paid by the plaintiffs under subsections (a) and (b), of section 1 rather than to the credit of the generation tax paid upon the power so sold and otherwise subject to the sales tax under said subsection (c). This credit provision is so evidently for the purpose of preventing a double tax on power sold that the point may be dismissed, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Idaho Gold Dredging Company v. Balderston
... ... 673, 9 S.Ct. 195, 32 L.Ed. 571.) ... The act ... confers legislative power and duty upon others than the ... senate and house of representatives of the state of Idaho ... Sheppard, (Tex. Civ. App.) 89 S.W.2d 1021; Ohio Oil ... Co. v. McFarland, 28 F.2d 441; Duke Power Co. v ... Query, 10 F.Supp. 669; Lake Superior, etc., v ... Lord, 271 U.S. 577, 46 ... ...
-
Duke Power Co. v. South Carolina Tax Commission
...pursuant to the provisions of this act. The case at bar was heard and decided in the court below on April 11, 1935 (Duke Power Co. v. Query (D.C.) 10 F.Supp. 669), as a test case to govern the other cases which were pending involving the same questions; but before appeal from the judgment c......
-
THE JOHN AND FREDERICK, 13810
... ... The John and Frederick is a tank barge without motive power. Her exact dimensions are not shown. The answers to the interrogatories filed by the claimant of ... ...