Lyng v. State of Michigan

Decision Date28 April 1890
Citation34 L.Ed. 150,10 S.Ct. 725,135 U.S. 161
PartiesLYNG v. STATE OF MICHIGAN. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The trial in the circuit court was had upon the following facts agreed: '(1) Franz Hagemeister and Henry Hage meister are citizens of the United States of America, and reside at the city of Green Bay, in the state of Wisconsin, and are engaged in the manufacture of lager-beer under the name of Hagemeister & Son, at Green Bay aforesaid, where they have a brewery for the manufacture thereof. (2) Such lager-beer is brewed liquor, within the meaning of Act No. 313 of the Laws of Michigan for 1887. (3) Said Hagemeister & Son own a warehouse in the village of Iron River, in the township of Iron, in the county of Iron and state of Michigan, where they store quantities of their lager-beer so made by them at Green Bay aforesaid, and from there shipped to their said warehouse in said village of Iron River, to be there stored and disposed of. (4) The defendant, Henry Lyng, is employed by said Hagemeister & Son as their agent, on a regular salary, to look after their said warehouse, to take orders for and deliver said beer, so manufactured and stored, in quantities exceeding three gallons, and to collect and remit the proceeds of the sales thereof to Hagemeister & Son, and was so employed on the 19th day of July, 1888. (5) On July 19, 1888, at the village of Iron River, in the county of Iron and state of Michigan, said defendant, in the course of said employment by Hagemeister & Son, did deliver from said warehouse to Martin Lally, and to divers other persons, all of whom paid him therefor, certain of said lager-beer so made and shipped by Hagemeister & Son from Green Bay aforesaid, in quantities exceeding three gallons. All of said lager-beer was so delivered in the original packages in which it had been shipped. The defendant sold no other liquors. (6) Neither the said defendant nor the said Hagemeister & Son, or either of them, have paid any tax in the village of Iron River, aforesaid, on the business of selling or keeping for sale malt liquors at wholesale or at wholesale and retail, nor given any bond such as is mentioned in Act No. 313 of the Public Acts of Michigan for 1887.'

Sections 1, 2, 4, 7, and 24 of Act No. 313 of Pub. Acts Mich. 1887, p. 445 et seq., are as follows: 'Section 1. The people of the state of Michigan enact that in all townships, cities, and villages of this state there shall be paid annually the following tax upon the business of manufacturing, selling, or keeping for sale, by all persons whose business, in whole or in part, consists in selling or keeping for sale, or manufacturing, distilled or brewed or malt liquors or mixed liquors, as follows: Upon the business of selling or offering for sale spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or mixed liquors, by retail, or any mixture or compound, excepting proprietary patent medicines, which in whole or in part consist of spirituous or intoxicating liquors, and any malt, brewed, or fermented liquors, five hundred dollars per annum; upon the business of selling only brewed or malt liquors at wholesale or retail, or at wholesale and retail, three hundred dollars per annum; upon the business of selling spirituous or intoxicating liquors at wholesale, five hundred dollars, or at wholesale and retail, eight hundred dollars, per annum; upon the business of manufacturing brewed or malt liquors for sale, sixty-five dollars per annum; upon the business of manufacturing for sale spirituous or intoxicating liquors, eight hundred dollars per annum. No person paying a tax on spirituous or intoxicating liquors under this act shall be liable to pay any tax on the sale of malt, brewed, or fermented liquors. No person paying a manufacturer's tax on brewed or malt liquors under this act shall be liable to pay a wholesale dealer's tax on the same.

Sec. 2. Retail dealers of spirituous or intoxicating liquors, and brewed, malt, and fermented liquors, shall be held and deemed to include all persons who sell any of such liquors by the drink, and in quantities of three gallons or less, or one dozen quart bottles or less, at any one time, to any person or persons. Wholesale dealers shall be held and deemed to mean and include all persons who sell or offer for sale such liquors and beverages in quantities of more than three gallons, or more than one dozen quart bottles, at any one time, to any person or persons. No tax imposed under this act shall be required from any person for selling any wine or cider made from fruits grown or gathered in this State, unless such wine or cider be sold by the drink as other beverages are."

Sec. 4. Every person engaged in, or intending to engage in, any business named in section one of this act, and requiring the payment of any tax mentioned in said section one, shall, on or before the first day of May in each year, make and file with the county treasurer in the county where it is proposed to carry on such business, a statement in writing and on oath, showing the name...

To continue reading

Request your trial
124 cases
  • State v. Clausen
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 27, 1911
    ... ... of Maryland and Connecticut, or the ... [117 P. 1112] ... products natural or manufactured of any Lyng v ... Michigan, 135 U.S. 161, 10 S.Ct. 725, 34 L.Ed. 150. It ... refused to classify intoxicating liquors with rags or other ... ...
  • Fox Film Corporation v. Trumbull
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 17, 1925
    ...subjects, and therefore void." In 1890, in Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 S. Ct. 681, 34 L. Ed. 128, and in Lyng v. Michigan, 135 U. S. 161, 10 S. Ct. 725, 34 L. Ed. 150, in opinions written by Chief Justice Fuller, it was held that a law of a state which forbade sales of merchandise br......
  • State v. Salt Lake Tribune Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1926
    ... ... the reason it cannot be thought possible to make the ... advertisement of a lawful business unlawful and punishable as ... a crime. Lyng v. Michigan , 135 U.S. 161, 10 S.Ct ... 725, 34 L.Ed. 150; Crutcher v. Kentucky , 141 U.S ... 47, 11 S.Ct. 851, 35 L.Ed. 649; In re Rahrer , ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Huntley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1892
    ... ... in which it was brought into this state; and the justice who ... presided at the trial reported the case to this court. In the ... second ... interference with interstate commerce. This decision has ... since been followed in Lyng v. Michigan, 135 U.S ... 161, 10 S.Ct. 725; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S ... 313, 10 S.Ct ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • State + Local Tax Insights: Winter 2014
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 21, 2014
    ...Federalist Nos. 6, 7, 11, 22 (Alexander Hamilton). 11 Art. 6, Sec. 3. 12 The Federalist No. 22 (Alexander Hamilton). 13 Lyng v. Michigan, 135 U.S. 161, 166 14 Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 193-94 (1824). 15 49 CFR 390.5. 16 Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 303 (1936) (stating that "[......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT