National Tea Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 27 September 1940
• Docket Number: 31948,31949.
• Parties: NATIONAL TEA CO. et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

294 N.W. 230

208 Minn. 607

NATIONAL TEA CO. et al. v. STATE.

Nos. 31948, 31949.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

September 27, 1940

Appeals from District Court, Ramsey County; Richard D. O'Brien Judge.

On rehearing.

Judgments vacated by the United States Supreme Court, 309 U.S. 551, 60 S.Ct. 676, 84 L.Ed. 920, reinstated.

For former opinion, see 286 N.W. 360, 205 Minn. 443.

In case before state Supreme Court involving validity of statute under State Constitution, court would not write decision on such a basis that the United States Supreme Court would have unquestionable jurisdiction to review the decision, since judicial duty did not permit court to shift or avoid responsibility resting upon it to exercise its own honest judgment in the interpretation of the State Constitution with finality.

J. A A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., and Matthias N. Orfield and George W. Markham, Sp. Attys., both of St. Paul, for appellant.

M. J Doherty, W. E. Rumble, and William Mitchell, all of St. Paul for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Our former opinion in these cases is found in 205 Minn. 443, 286 N.W. 360, reference to which is made to avoid repetition. In conformity with what was there determined judgments were entered on June 27, 1939. On the state's petition in that behalf the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 11, 1939, and on March 25, 1940, rendered its decision (309 U.S. 551, 60 S.Ct. 676, 680, 84 L.Ed. 920) vacating the mentioned judgments and remanded the cause ‘ for further proceedings' but without directions otherwise. However, we gather from that opinion that what is wanted is ‘ the elimination of the obscurities and ambiguities' (309 U.S. 557, 60 S.Ct. 679, 84 L.Ed. 920) said by the majority to exist in the opinion we had written. It is not thought improper to note that the Chief Justice, as well as Justices Stone and Roberts, found ‘ no reason to doubt’ that we had ‘ held that the tax in question was laid in violation of the uniformity clause’ of our own Constitution, art. 9, § 1. As they viewed it, ‘ This is not a case where the record leaves us in uncertainty as to what has actually been determined by the state court. [Citing cases.] Nor have there been supervening changes since the entry of the judgment.’ (Citing cases.) 309 U.S. 558, 60 S.Ct. 680 84 L.Ed. 920. But we are not now concerned with difference of opinion in respect to the adequacy of the language chosen in our original opinion. We should rather examine anew the issues we thought had been determined in our prior decision. If we were in error then assuredly the opportunity to be set aright should be cheerfully and thankfully accepted. Having so re-examined them we conclude that our prior decision was right. There is no need of further discussion of the problems presented for the former opinion adequately covers the ground. We think that the section of the statute here involved, L.1933, c. 213, § 2(b), 3 Mason Minn.St.1936 Supp. § 5887-2(b), is violative of the uniformity clause of our own Constitution.

Counsel for the state in oral...