Louisa Kidd v. State of Alabama, No. 158
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 23 S.Ct. 401,188 U.S. 730,47 L.Ed. 669 |
| Parties | LOUISA V. KIDD, as Executrix of the Will of H. B. Tulane, Deceased, Plff. in Err. , v. STATE OF ALABAMA |
| Docket Number | No. 158 |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1903 |
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA.
Mr. W. A. Gunter for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Francis G. Caffey, John C. Breckinridge, A. A. Wiley, Gordon Macdonald, and John G. McNeel for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an action for taxes brought by the state of Alabama against the executrix of the will of a citizen of Alabama. It appears on the record that the property in dispute is stock in
Page 731
railroads incorporated in other states than Alabama, and that the objection was taken seasonably by plea and by requests for instructions to the jury that the tax was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, because no similar tax was levied on the stock of domestic railroads or of foreign railroads doing business in that state. Demurrers to the pleas were sustained, there was a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment, which latter was affirmed by the supreme court of the state without discussion, on the authority of its decision at an earlier stage (State v. Kidd, 125 Ala. 413, 28 So. 418), and the case is brought here by writ of error.
The statutes levying the tax in question are the Code of 1886, § 453, cl. 13, and the Code of 1896, § 3911, cl. 14. They are general clauses, which need not be set forth, as their effect is not disputed under the construction given to them by the supreme court of the state. The exemption by the Code of 1886 of stock in domestic railroads, and in others that list substantially all their property for taxation (Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S. 511, 522, 29 L. ed. 240, 244, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1014), is not denied, and while it is denied by the defendant in error that there is a similar exemption by the Code of 1896, for the purposes of decision we shall assume, without examination, that it is granted. State v. Kidd, 125 Ala. 413, 422, 28 So. 418. On this assumption the argument for the plaintiff in error is that if foreign stock is treated for purposes of taxation as present by fiction in the domicil, it must be treated as present also for purposes of protection; that the tax is a tax on values, and that net values of similar articles must be treated alike. It is said that you cannot look further back.
If the argument went further and denied the right to tax on fiction at all, and therefore denied the right to tax foreign stocks, it would seem to us to have more logical force, although we are far from implying that it would be unanswerable, or that it can be regarded as open. Very likely such taxes can be justified without the help of fiction. Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S. 511, 29 L. ed. 240, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1014; Dwight v. Boston, 12 Allen, 316; Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321, 23 Am. Rep. 460. But the argument does not go to that extent, and, limited as it is, the proposition that the plaintiff in error is denied the equal protection of the laws for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.I. Hosp. Trust Co v. Doughton, (No. 249.)
...personam and domicile governs the whole. But these inconsistencies infringe no rule of constitutional law." Again in Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730, 23 Sup. Ct. 401, 47 L. Ed. 669, the same learned justice took occasion to say: "No doubt it would be a great advantage to the country and to t......
-
State v. Parker Distilling Co.
...cases: State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1, loc. cit. 35 to 41, 62 S. W. 828; Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S., loc. cit. 732, 23 Sup. Ct. 401, 47 L. Ed. 669; Cargill v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452, 21 Sup. Ct. 423, 45 L. Ed. 619; Armour Packing Co., v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, 26 Sup. Ct. 232, 50 L. Ed. 451; At......
-
Colgate v. Harvey
...that the law violated the equality and uniformity clause of the state Constitution. The claim was not sustained. So in Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730, 23 S. Ct. 401, 47 L. Ed. 669, 670, it was held that a tax on stock of a railroad incorporated in another state held by a resident of Alabama......
-
MAYO COLLABOR. SERVICES v. COM'R OF REVENUE, No. A04-2190.
...the foreign corporation was not taxed in Indiana. Id. at 398, 33 S.Ct. 120. The Court said that this conclusion followed Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U.S. 730, 23 S.Ct. 401, 47 L.Ed. 669 (1903), involving an Alabama tax on stock ownership. The Alabama statute taxed the ownership of domestic stock, ......
-
R.I. Hosp. Trust Co v. Doughton, (No. 249.)
...personam and domicile governs the whole. But these inconsistencies infringe no rule of constitutional law." Again in Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730, 23 Sup. Ct. 401, 47 L. Ed. 669, the same learned justice took occasion to say: "No doubt it would be a great advantage to the country and to t......
-
State v. Parker Distilling Co.
...cases: State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1, loc. cit. 35 to 41, 62 S. W. 828; Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S., loc. cit. 732, 23 Sup. Ct. 401, 47 L. Ed. 669; Cargill v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452, 21 Sup. Ct. 423, 45 L. Ed. 619; Armour Packing Co., v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, 26 Sup. Ct. 232, 50 L. Ed. 451; At......
-
Colgate v. Harvey
...that the law violated the equality and uniformity clause of the state Constitution. The claim was not sustained. So in Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730, 23 S. Ct. 401, 47 L. Ed. 669, 670, it was held that a tax on stock of a railroad incorporated in another state held by a resident of Alabama......
-
MAYO COLLABOR. SERVICES v. COM'R OF REVENUE, No. A04-2190.
...the foreign corporation was not taxed in Indiana. Id. at 398, 33 S.Ct. 120. The Court said that this conclusion followed Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U.S. 730, 23 S.Ct. 401, 47 L.Ed. 669 (1903), involving an Alabama tax on stock ownership. The Alabama statute taxed the ownership of domestic stock, ......