H.G. Adair Printing Co. v. Ames
| Decision Date | 27 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 23598.,23598. |
| Citation | 4 N.E.2d 481,364 Ill. 342 |
| Parties | H. G. ADAIR PRINTING CO. et al. v. AMES, Director of Finance, et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Walter J. La Buy, judge.
Suit by the H. G. Adair Printing Company and others against K. L. Ames, Director of Finance, and others. From on adverse judgment, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
WILSON, J., dissenting.Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen. (Montgomery S. Winning, of Springfield, and William C. Clausen, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Benjamin F. J. Odell and Harry M. Brostoff, both of Chicago, for appellees.
The H. G. Adair Printing Company, a corporation, and others, filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook county against the Director of Finance and the Attorney General of the State to enjoin them from instituting or prosecuting any suit or proceeding against the complainants to compel them to make returns to the Department of Finance of gross receipts from their vocation of printers by reason of the provisions of the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act (Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 120, § 440 et seq.) and Rule 36 of the Department of Finance, adopted in pursuance of the act. A motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint was overruled and the injunction was issued. This appeal is from that final judgment.
The trial court properly held that this case is controlled by Burgess Co. v. Ames, 359 Ill. 427, 194 N.E. 565, 566, as there is no substantial difference in principle. In that case, referring to blueprinters, we said: ‘The paper is destroyed when the exposure is made, and it has no further use or value to any one other than the person interested in that particular reproduction.’ The same is true of the work carried on by appellees. Copy for printed matter is delivered to them, and in the process of carrying out their contract of service they use ink for the purpose of destroying plain paper so far as its commercial value is concerned. From that time it is of no use or value to any person other than the one for whom the printing is done. It should be apparent that letterheads, circulars, mail-order catalogues, printed briefs for an attorney, or any other special printed matter, would be without commercial value, and it follows that the printer is engaged only in service. The appellees are not engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property but in the business of printing-one of the graphic arts.
The trial judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meredith Corp. v. United States
...do not "sell" them furnished magazines. See Time, Inc. , 201 N.E.2d at 376–77 (collecting cases); see also H.G. Adair Printing Co. v. Ames , 364 Ill. 342, 4 N.E.2d 481, 481 (1936) (finding that the printed material "is of no use or value to any person other than the one for whom the printin......
-
Samper v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...Eng. Reprint 716, 23 Eng. Rul.Cas. 191. See also J. A. Burgess Co. v. Ames, 1935, 359 Ill. 427, 194 N.E. 565; H. G. Adair Printing Co. v. Ames (1936), 364 Ill. 342, 4 N.E.2d 481. Appellee was the printer and not the publisher of books. Its gross income did not depend upon the acceptance of ......
-
Meredith Corp. v. United States
...bind, pursuant to a contract. The contract was one of work, labor and materials and not one of sale."); H.G. Adair Printing Co. v. Ames , 364 Ill. 342, 4 N.E.2d 481, 481–82 (1936) ("The appellees are not engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property but in the business of pr......
-
Svithiod Singing Club v. McKibbin
...was licensed or authorized to transact. Mahon v. Nudelman, supra; Babcock v. Nudelman, 367 Ill. 626, 12 N.E.2d 635;Adair Printing Co. v. Ames, 364 Ill. 342, 4 N.E.2d 481;A. B. C. Electrotype Co. v. Ames, 364 Ill. 360, 4 N.E.2d 476;Burgess Co. v. Ames, 359 Ill. 427, 194 N.E. 565. With these ......