Pierce Oil Corporation v. Hopkins
| Decision Date | 18 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 151,151 |
| Citation | 68 L.Ed. 593,264 U.S. 137,44 S.Ct. 251 |
| Parties | PIERCE OIL CORPORATION v. HOPKINS, Sebastian County Clerk, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Sam T. Poe, of Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
Mr. Wm. T. Hammock, of Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.
A statute of Arkansas provides that one who sells gasoline to be used by the purchaser in motor vehicles on highways of the state 'shall collect from such purchaser in addition to the usual charge therefor, the sum of one cent (1¢) per gallon for each gallon so sold'; that the dealer shall register with the county clerk in every county in which he does business, shall file each month a report of the sales made within the county during the preceding month, and shall personally pay over each month the amount of the taxes accrued thereon; and that failure to file the report or to pay such amount is a misdemeanor which subjects the dealer to a fine. Act No. 606, approved March 29, 1921, Acts of Arkansas 1921, p. 685. To enjoin the enforcement of the law the Pierce Oil Corporation brought, in the federal court for Western Arkansas, this suit against taxing officials. The trial court dismissed the bill, without opinion. Its decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 282 Fed. 253. The case is here under section 241 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1218). Whether the statute is valid is the sole question for decision. The claims are that the statute violates the due process clause of the federal Constitution, and that it is void for uncertainty.1
The claim that the act violates the due process clause rests upon the argument that the tax levied is a privilege tax for the use of the highways by the purchasers; that the seller is required to pay the tax laid on the purchasers; that, unlike those cases where a bank is required to pay taxes assessed against stockholders or depositors (Citizens' National Bank v. Kentucky, 217 U. S. 443, 30 Sup. Ct. 532, 54 L. Ed. 832; Clement National Bank v. Vermont, 231 U. S. 120, 34 Sup. Ct. 31, 58 L. Ed. 147), the seller is not afforded the means of reimbursing himself; and that, moreover, the mere process of collecting the tax from the purchaser, and making monthly reports and payments, subjects the seller to an appreciable expense. A short answer to this argument is that the seller is directed to collect the tax from the purchaser when he makes the sale, and that a state which has, under its Constitution, power to regulate the business of selling gasoline ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel Rice, Atty.-Gen. v. Allen
... ... constitutional in the case of Southern Package ... Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 164 So. 45. 174 ... Miss. 212. Chapter 155, Laws 1936, is simply an ... Lindsay, 85 Kan. 79, 116 P. 207, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 810; ... State of Kansas ex rel. Hopkins v. Howart, 109 Kan ... 376, 198 P. 686, 25 A. L. R. 1210; State of Kansas v ... Mahon, 128 ... law has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court of the ... United States in Pierce Oil Corporation v. Hopkins, ... 264 U.S. 137, 44 S.Ct. 251, 68 L.Ed. 593, and Monamotor ... Oil ... ...
-
Gaulden v. Kirk
...not violate due process of law has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pierce Oil Corporation v. Hopkins, 264 U.S. 137, 44 S.Ct. 251, 68 L.Ed. 593, and Monamotor Oil Co. v. Johnson, 292 U.S. 86, 54 S.Ct. 575, 78 L.Ed. 1141. See, also, Heriot v. City of Pensac......
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...L. R. A. 1917B, 553, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 237;Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 37 S. Ct. 30, 61 L. Ed. 222;Pierce Oil Corp. v. Hopkins, 264 U. S. 137, 44 S. Ct. 251, 68 L. Ed. 593;Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 35 S. Ct. 140, 59 L. Ed. 385;Opinion of the Justices, 81 N. H. 552, 120 A. 6......
-
Leonard v. Maxwell, 744.
...on to the consumer, and prohibiting the retail merchant from advertising otherwise, are not here involved. Pierce Oil Corp. v. Hopkins, 264 U.S. 137, 44 S.Ct. 251, 68 L.Ed. 593. The plaintiff has alleged no hurt from these provisions. St. George v. Hardie, 147 N.C. 88, 60 S.E. 920. If other......