Parks Bros. & Co. v. Nez Perce County

• Decision Date: 18 April 1907
• Citation: 89 P. 949,13 Idaho 298
• Parties: PARKS BROS. & COMPANY, Appellants, v. NEZ PERCE COUNTY, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

89 P. 949

13 Idaho 298

PARKS BROS. & COMPANY, Appellants, v. NEZ PERCE COUNTY, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 18, 1907

INTERSTATE COMMERCE-ORIGINAL PACKAGE-TERMINATION OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION-TAXING POWER OF THE STATE-WHEN IMPORTED GOODS MAY BE TAXED.

1. Where goods were ordered by citizens of Idaho from wholesale merchants in San Francisco, and the goods were packed, boxed and shipped from San Francisco and consigned to the shippers at Ilo, Idaho, and received by them at their destination and removed from the depot or warehouse, and the boxes or cases were opened by them, and the separate packages or parcels were removed from the boxes or cases in which they were shipped, the goods have in such case ceased to be the subject of interstate transportation, and are subject to taxation under the revenue laws of this state.

2. Where goods have been shipped by the manufacturers or merchants from one state, and consigned to the shippers in another state, and are thereafter received by the shippers at the point of destination, and the boxes or cases in which the shipment was made are opened and the smaller and separate packages contained therein are removed therefrom, the goods are no longer imports, but thereupon become a part and parcel of the general body of the property of the state in which they are found and are subject to the taxing power thereof.

3. Under the facts of this case, the "original package" was the box or case in which the goods were packed and shipped into this state, and when the box or case was opened for the sale and delivery of the separate packages and parcels contained therein, and they were removed therefrom, the separate and individual parcels contained lost their distinctive character of imports or articles of interstate transportation, and become a part and parcel of the taxable property of this state.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, for Nez Perce County. Hon. Edgar C. Steele, Judge.

From a judgment made and entered by the district court adjudging certain personal property to be the subject of taxation under the revenue laws of this state, the plaintiff appealed. Judgment Affirmed.

Judgment of the trial court affirmed, with costs in favor of respondent.

Anderson & Nickerson (Van W. Hasbrouck, of Counsel), for Appellants.

In making internal police and revenue regulations a state cannot impose taxes upon property imported into the state from abroad, or from another state, and not yet become part of the common mass of property therein, and no regulations can be made directly affecting interstate commerce. (O'Neill v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 36 L.Ed. 450, 12 S.Ct. 693; Ascher v. Texas, 128 U.S. 129, 32 L.Ed. 368, 9 S.Ct. 1.)

Interstate commerce cannot be taxed at all by a state even though the same amount of tax should be laid as on domestic commerce. (Robbins v. Taxing Dist. of Columbia, 120 U.S. 489 30 L.Ed. 694, 7 S.Ct. 592; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622, 47 L.Ed. 336, 23 S.Ct. 229; Village of Cerro Gordo v. Rawlins, 135 Ill. 36, 25 N.E. 1006; Emmons v. City of Lewiston, 132 Ill. 380 22 Am. St. Rep. 540, 24 N.E. 58, 8 L. R. A. 328; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446, 29 L.Ed. 691, 6 S.Ct. 454; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 23 L.Ed. 347; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 20 L.Ed. 449; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U.S. 434, 25 L.Ed. 743; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U.S. 344, 26 L.Ed. 565; Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 623, 29 L.Ed. 257, 5 S.Ct. 1091; Marshalltown v. Blum, 58 Iowa 184, 43 Am. Rep. 116, 12 N.W. 266; State v. Furbush, 72 Me 494; Tugman v. Chicago, 78 Ill. 405.)

B. S. Crow, for Respondent.

Even "goods imported from other countries may be taxed by the state with other property when they have passed from the importer's hands, or have become a part of the general property of the state by the breaking up of the original packages." (1 Cooley on Taxation, p. 150, and cases cited.)

The original packages in the present case were the bundles as shipped by Parks Bros. from San Francisco consigned to themselves in Culdesac. They were not the packages contained within these bundles.

The term "original package" was and is the package of the importer as it existed at the time of its transportation from one state to another. The whole subject has relation to commerce and to interstate commerce, and to nothing else; hence the word must mean the package as transported by the importer himself, or by his agent, either a common carrier or a private carrier for the purposes of commerce. (State v. Winters, 44 Kan. 723, 25 P. 236, 10 L. R. A. 616; Keith v. State, 91 Ala. 2, 8 So. 353, 10 L. R. A. 430; Commonwealth v. Schollenberger, 156 Pa. 201, 36 Am. St. Rep. 32, 27 A. 30, 22 L. R. A. 155; McGregor v. Cone, 104 Iowa 465, 65 Am. St. Rep. 522, 73 N.W. 1041, 39 L. R. A. 484; Haley v. State, 42 Neb. 556, 47 Am. St. Rep. 718, 60 N.W. 962; In re Harmon, 43 F. 372.)

The box, case or bale in which the separate parcels or bundles were placed by the foreign seller, manufacturer, or packer is to be regarded as the original package; and when it reaches its destination for trade or sale and is opened for the purpose of using or exposing to sale the separate parcels or bundles, the goods lose their distinctive character as imports, and each parcel or bundle becomes a part of the general mass of property in the state and subject to local taxation. (May v. New Orleans, 178 U.S. 496, 44 L.Ed. 1165, 20 S.Ct. 976, 51 La. Ann. 1064, 25 So. 959.)

AILSHIE, C. J. Sullivan, J., concurs.

OPINION

AILSHIE, C. J.

The appellants are wholesale merchants, doing business in the city of San Francisco and receiving orders through their agents and by mail for teas, coffee, spices, etc., which they ship to their own address and there receive the goods and distribute them to the purchasers and collect the purchase price therefor. The facts and history of this transaction are fully set forth in the findings made by the trial court, which are as follows:

"The court finds as a matter of fact that the property assessed to Parks Brothers & Co. of San Francisco, Cal., was consigned to Parks Bros. & Co., in Nez Perce County, was received by Parks Bros. & Co., said plaintiff, in said Nez Perce County, and was in said county opened by Parks Brothers & Co., in Nez Perce County, the contents of the original packages being separated and distributed to different parties in said Nez Perce County; that while said property was in the care, control and custody of said Parks Brothers & Co., in Nez Perce County, it was assessed by the assessor of said county.

"The court also finds that Parks Bros. & Co., are and were on the 12th day of August, 1905, wholesale grocers residing at and doing business in the City of San Francisco, State of California, and that they sold their goods through an agent who showed the purchasers samples and took orders for the goods, which orders were sent to plaintiff's house in the city of San Francisco, and there filled according to said orders; that the said goods were shipped to Ilo in Nez Perce County, consigned to the plaintiffs, and there received by their agent and delivered to the purchasers; that no goods were shipped except those which had previously been ordered, and that no other goods were sold at the place of delivery than those which had previously been ordered, and that the said goods were consigned to Parks Bros. & Co. for the only purpose of examination by the purchasers and collection by plaintiff of the amount to be paid; that the goods consisted of teas, coffees and spices, and the small packages were shipped together in a large box, as the packages for each individual being done up separately, and the large boxes containing small packages were broken at Ilo, the place of destination, and the contents delivered to purchasers in accordance with the orders previously given and filed in San Francisco; that the said property was assessed while in the care, control and custody of Parks Bros. & Co. in Nez Perce County at Ilo, the place of destination on the 12th day of August, 1905, by the assessor of Nez Perce County."

This litigation grows out of the fact that after the receipt of the goods at Ilo, in this state, and while the plaintiffs were delivering the goods to the purchasers, the tax collector of Nez Perce county assessed the property to appellants and demanded payment of the taxes under the revenue laws of this state.

There is no question as to the regularity of the assessment, provided the property had become a part of the taxable property of this state and was not protected by the commerce clause of the constitution of the United States and the act of Congress regulating interstate commerce. The appellants, Parks Bros., place their sole reliance on the contention that the taxation of these goods was a violation of sections 8 and 10 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States and the acts of Congress regulating commerce between states. The trial court, after making findings of fact, as hereinbefore set out, concluded as a matter of law that the property in question was subject to taxation within this state, and was properly assessed against the plaintiffs.

Considerable argument has been made upon the question as to where and when the sale of these goods took place, whether in California or Idaho. As we view the case, however, that question is of but slight importance. It is not out of place, though, to observe that the title to the property clearly rested in the vendors. They were still in possession and would retain the title until the purchase price was received by them. While there undoubtedly existed a contract between the plaintiffs and purchasers looking to the sale of this property, the transaction...