Jones v. City of Portland, No. 77
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | DAY |
| Citation | 38 S.Ct. 112,245 U.S. 217,62 L.Ed. 252 |
| Parties | JONES et al. v. CITY OF PORTLAND |
| Docket Number | No. 77 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1917 |
v.
CITY OF PORTLAND.
[Syllabus from page 217 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Eben Winthrop Freeman, of Portland, Me., for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of council on 217-218 intentionally omitted.]
Page 218
Messrs. Carroll S. Chaplin, Guy H. Sturgis, and Henry P. Frank, all of Portland, Me., for defendant in error.
[Argument of council on 218-220 intentionally omitted.]
Page 220
Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
By an act of the Legislature of the state of Maine approved March 19, 1903, P. L. 1903, c. 122; section 87, chapter 4, Revised Statutes of Maine, 1903, it was provided:
'Any city or town may establish and maintain, within its limits, a permanent wood, coal, and fuel yard, for the purpose of selling, at cost, wood, coal and fuel to its inhabitants. The term 'at cost' as used herein, shall be construed as meaning without financial profit.'
The city of Portland, Me., voted to establish and maintain within its limits a permanent coal and fuel yard for the purposes of selling at cost wood, coal, and fuel to its inhabitants, and that the money necessary for such purposes be raised by taxation, and that the term 'at cost' as used in said vote should be construed as meaning without financial profit. On February 3, 1913, the common council of the city at a legal meeting passed the vote, and on the same date it was passed by the board of aldermen of the city, and on February 4, 1913, the mayor of the city approved it, whereupon it became the vote of the city of Portland. The city voted to appropriate the sum of $1,000 to be devoted to carrying out the purposes of the vote, and the appropriation was passed by the common council, the board of aldermen, and approved by the mayor of the city.
This suit was brought by citizens and taxpayers of Portland in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine in equity to enjoin the establishment of the yard. The Supreme Judicial Court sustained a demurrer to the bill, and dismissed it. 113 Me. 123, 93 Atl. 41. A writ of error brings the case here because of alleged violation of rights se-
Page 221
cured to the plaintiffs in error by the Fourteenth Amendment. The contention is that the establishment of the municipal wood yard is not a public purpose; that taxation to accomplish that end amounts to the taking of the property of the plaintiffs in error without due process of law.
The decision of the case turns upon the answer to the question whether the taxation is for a public purpose. It is well settled that moneys for other than public purposes cannot be raised by taxation, and that exertion of the taxing power for merely private purposes is beyond the authority of the State. Citizens' Saving & Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, 22 L. Ed. 455.
The act in question has the sanction of the legislative branch of the state government, the body primarily invested with authority to determine what laws are required in the public interest. That the purpose is a public one has been determined upon full consideration by the Supreme Judicial Court of the state upon the authority of a previous decision of that court. Laughlin v. City of Portland, 111 Me. 486, 90 Atl. 318, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1143, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 734.
The attitude of this court towards state legislation purporting to be passed in the public interest, and so declared to be by the decision of the court of last resort of the state passing the act, has often been declared. While the ultimate authority to determine the validity of legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment is rested in this court, local conditions are of such varying character that what is or is not a public use in a particular state is manifestly a matter respecting which local authority, legislative and judicial, has peculiar facilities for securing accurate information. In that view the judgment of the highest court of the state upon what should be deemed a public use in a particular state is entitled to the highest respect. Hairston v. Danville & Western Ry. Co., 208 U. S. 598, 607, 28 Sup. Ct. 331, 52 L. Ed. 637, 13 Ann. Cas. 1008. In Union Lime Co.
Page 222
v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 233 U. S. 211, 34 Sup. Ct. 522, 58 L. Ed. 924, this court declared that a decision of the highest court of the state declaring a use to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Puget Sound Power Light Co v. City of Seattle, Wash 12 8212 15, 1934, No. 344
...on by private enterprise, levy a tax to support it, Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 40 S.Ct. 499, 64 L.Ed. 878; Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U.S. 217, 38 S.Ct. 112, 62 L.Ed. 252, L.R.A. 1918C, 765, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 660, and compete with private interests engaged in a like activity, Standa......
-
Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co Same v. Gulf States Paper Corporation, Nos. 724
...694, 696, 67 L.Ed. 1194; Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed. 369; Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U.S. 217, 221, 38 S.Ct. 112, 62 L.Ed. 252, L.R.A.1918C, 765, Ann.Cas.1918E, 660. The states, by their constitutions and laws, may set their own limits......
-
New State Ice Co v. Liebmann, No. 463
...from the private dealers. Thus, a city may, if the local law permits, buy and sell at retail coal and wood, Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U. S. 217, 38 S. Ct. 112, 62 L. Ed. 252, L. R. A. 1918C, 765, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 660; or gasoline, Standard Oil Co. v. City of Lincoln, 275 U. S. 504, 48 ......
-
Louis Liggett Co v. Lee 12 8212 13, 1933, No. 301
...conceivably escape from the domination of giant corporations by having the state engage in business. Compare Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U.S. 217, 38 S.Ct. 112, 62 L.Ed. 252, L.R.A. 1918C, 765, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 660; Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 40 S.Ct. 499, 64 L.Ed. 878; Standard Oil......
-
Nebbia v. People of State of New York, No. 531
...86, 11 S.Ct. 13, 34 L.Ed. 620. 35 Madera Waterworks Co. v. Madera, 228 U.S. 454, 33 S.Ct. 571, 57 L.Ed. 915; Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U.S. 217, 38 S.Ct. 112, 62 L.Ed. 252, L.R.A. 1918C, 765, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 660; Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 40 S.Ct. 499, 64 L.Ed. 878; Standard Oil......
-
Common Cause v. State
...as not being for a public purpose. A later case incorporated the doctrine into the fourteenth amendment. Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U.S. 217, 38 S.Ct. 112, 62 L.Ed. 252 (1917), aff'g 113 Me. 123, 93 A. 41 Topeka has been substantially undermined by later Supreme Court decisions making c......
-
Dornan v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth.
...to one of public interest. See, also, as to what constitutes a public purpose for which taxes may be levied, Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U.S. 217, 38 S.Ct. 112, 62 L.Ed. 252, L.R.A.1918C, 765, Ann. Cas.1918E, 660, and Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 40 S.Ct. 499, 64 L.Ed. 9 Linn v. Chain......
-
State ex rel. Roth v. Waterfield, Case Number: 24650
...22, 40 S. Ct. 79, 81, 64 L. Ed. 112. And, see Barbier v Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 S. Ct. 357, 28 L. Ed. 923, and Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U.S. 217, 38 S. Ct. 112, 62 L. Ed. 252, L. R. A. 1918C, 765, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 660." ¶24 In the case of Jones v. Portland, supra, Mr. Justice Day, of......