Osborne v. Mobile
| Citation | 83 U.S. 479,21 L.Ed. 470,16 Wall. 479 |
| Parties | OSBORNE v. MOBILE |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1872 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama.
Osborne was the agent, at Mobile, Alabama, of the Southern Express Company, incorporated by the State of Georgia, and as such transacted a general forwarding and express business within and extending beyond the limits of Alabama.
An ordinance of the city of Mobile was then in force, requiring that every express company or railroad company doing business in that city, and having a business extending beyond the limits of the State, should pay an annual license of $500, which should be deemed a first-grade license; that every express or railroad company doing business within the limits of the State should take out a license called a second-grade license, and pay therefor $100; and that every such company doing business within the city should take out a third-grade license, paying therefor $50. It subjected any person or incorporated company who should violate any of its provisions to a fine not exceeding $50 for each day of such violation.
On the 10th of February, 1869, Osborne was fined by the mayor of Mobile for violating that ordinance in conducting the business of his agency without having paid the $500 and obtained the license required. He appealed to the Circuit Court of the State, which affirmed the judgment of the mayor. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, and that court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. A writ of error brought the case here.
The question was whether the ordinance, in requiring payment for a license to transact in Mobile a business extending beyond the limits of the State of Alabama, was repugnant to the provision of the Constitution, vesting in the Congress of the United States the power 'to regulate commerce among the several States.'
Messrs. B. R. Curtis and Clarence Seward, for the plainti f in error; Mr. P. Phillips, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
In several cases decided at this term we have had occasion to consider questions of State taxation as affected by this clause of the Constitution. In one,1 we held that the State could not constitutionally impose and collect a tax upon the tonnage of freight taken up within its limits and carried beyond them, or taken up beyond its limits and brought within them; that is to say, in other words, upon interstate transportation. In another,2 we held that a tax upon the gross receipts for transportation by railroad and canal companies, chartered by the State, is not obnoxious to the objection of repugnancy to the constitutional provision.
The tax on tonnage was held to be unconstitutional be cause it was in effect a restriction upon interstate commerce, which by the Constitution was designed to be entirely free. The tax on gross receipts was held not to be repugnant to the Constitution, because imposed on the railroad companies in the nature of a general income tax, and incapable of being transferred as a burden upon the property carried from one State to another.
The difficulty of drawing the line between constitutional and unconstitutional taxation by the State was acknowledged, and has always been acknowledged, by this court; but that there is such a line is clear, and the court can best discharge its duty by determining in each case on which side the tax complained of is. It is as important to leave the rightful powers of the State in respect to taxation unimpaired as to maintain the powers of the Federal government in their integrity.
In the second of the cases recently decided, the whole court agreed that a tax on business carried on within the State and without discrimination...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chassanoil v. City of Greenwood
... ... Bacon ... v. Illinois, 227 U.S. 502, 57 L.Ed. 227; Harrison v ... Mayor, etc., of Vicksburg, 3 S. & M. 581; Osborne, ... Agent Southern Express Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Mobile, 83 ... U.S. 479, 21 L.Ed. 470; Nathan v. State of Louisiana, (U ... S.), 8 Howard 70, ... ...
-
Burnet v. Coronado Oil Gas Co
...5 How, 504, 12 L. Ed. 256; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 647, 8 S. Ct. 1380, 32 L. Ed. 311, overruling Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479, 21 L. Ed. 470; Morgan v. United States, 113 U. S. 476, 496, 5 S. Ct. 588, 28 L. Ed. 1044, overruling Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 19 L. Ed. 227;......
-
Jaybird Mining Co v. Weir
...217, 12 S. Ct. 121, 35 L. Ed. 994; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 647, 8 S. Ct. 1380, 32 L. Ed. 311, qualifying Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479, 21 L. Ed. 470;, Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 7 S. Ct. 118, 30 L. Ed. 1200, qualifying State Tax on Railway Gro......
-
John King Mfg Co v. City Council of August, 392
...to municipal ordinances. 3 Waring v. Mayor, 8 Wall. 110, 19 L. Ed. 342; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall, 123, 19 L. Ed. 382; Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479, 21 L. Ed. 470; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577, 22 L. Ed. 417, Compare Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 245, 246, 8 L. Ed. 4 See the d......
-
The Dormant Commerce Clause: the Origin Story and the "considerable Uncertainties"- 1824 to 1945
...for an express company doing out of state business the tax was $500 and only $100 for an in-state business. Osborne v. City of Mobile, 83 U.S. 479 (1872), overruled in part by Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640 (1888). The Court in Leloup v. Port of Mobile found a gross receipts tax on ......