Pullman Company v. Knott No 383 Pullman Company v. Knott No 384
| Decision Date | 02 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | 384,Nos. 383,s. 383 |
| Parties | PULLMAN COMPANY, Appt., v. W. V. KNOTT, as Comptroller of the State of Florida. NO 383. PULLMAN COMPANY, Appt., v. W. A. KNOTT, as Comptroller of the State of Florida. NO 384 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Frank B. Kellogg, Gustavus S. Fernald, and John E. Hartridge for appellant.
Mr. Thomas F. West, Attorney General for Florida, for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 24 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
These are suits to prevent the collection of a tax on gross receipts for different years, derived from business done by the appellant in the state of Florida, and to have the laws under which the tax would be assessed declared contrary to the 14th Amendment. The bills are like those stated in 231 U. S. 571, 58 L. ed. 375, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182, and aver the following facts: Chapter 5597 of the Laws of Florida for 1907, now § 44 of chapter 6421 of the Laws of 1913, imposes a license tax, which has been paid. Section 46 of chapter 5596 of the Laws of 1907, imposes a tax ad valorem, which also has been paid, with immaterial exceptions. Up to 1907 this property tax had not existed, but sleeping and parlor car companies had been required to make a return of gross receipts from business done between points within the state, and to pay a percentage upon such returns, which it paid in lieu of all other taxes. But by § 47 of said chapter 5596 (), the last-mentioned tax was continued in force alongside of the new ad valorem tax of § 46, and the appellant contends that after the levying of a property tax the tax on gross returns became void. An application for a preliminary injunction was heard before three judges and was denied, whereupon this appeal was taken and a supersedeas was granted upon payment of the sum in dispute into court.
The cases come here upon an alleged infringement of the Constitution of the United States, but are argued mainly upon the Constitution of the state. Of course the latter is not taken up into the 14th Amendment. Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 42 L. ed. 622, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 229; Burt v. Smith, 203 U. S. 129, 135, 51 L. ed. 121, 126, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 37. It can be considered only because the cases come from the district court upon the other ground. We will deal with the Federal question first. It is suggested that there is an arbitrary classifica- tion because the tax is confined to sleeping and parlor car companies, and does not fall upon railroads operating their own sleeping and parlor cars. If otherwise this were a valid objection, as to which we need express no opinion, it is enough to say that a tax is not to be upset upon hypothetical and unreal possibilities, if it would be good upon the facts as they are. Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U. S. 224, 58 L. ed. 1288, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856. It does not appear that any railroad in Florida does operate its own sleeping or parlor cars, and the attorney general of the state denies that such a case exists.
The other objection urged is that the taxpayer is not given a hearing. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louisville Gas Electric Co v. Coleman
...not to be upset upon hypothetical and unreal possibilities, if it would be good upon the facts as they are.' Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U. S. 23, 26, 35 S. Ct. 2, 3 (59 L. Ed. 105). See Crescent Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 257 U. S. 129, 137, 138, 42 S. Ct. 42, 66 L. Ed. As Kentucky might lawful......
-
National Life Ins Co v. United States, 228
...there is no finding of the Court of Claims that the National Life fares less well than some other company. See Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U. S. 23, 26, 35 S. Ct. 2, 59 L. Ed. 105; Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord, 262 U. S. 172, 180, 181, 43 S. Ct. 526, 67 L. Ed. I find nothing in the cases cited by ......
-
Amos v. Gunn
... ... State, 61 Fla. 85, 54 So. 383, the ... court held that under the above-quoted ... See Pullman Co. v. Knott, 70 Fla. 9, 69 So. 703; ... Mead, 71 Mo ... 266; Adams v. [84 Fla. 384] Clark, 36 Colo ... 65, 85 P. 642, 10 Ann ... ...
-
In re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.
...tax", but did say that "it was a method commonly pursued in respect to license and occupation taxes", citing Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U.S. 23, 59 L. Ed. 105, 35 S. Ct. 2, which, however, involved a Florida statute wherein the express purpose and intention was to levy an "occupation tax" in......
-
Has the Tide Turned in Favor of Disclosure? Revealing Money in Politics After Citizens United and Doe v. Reed
...(Sotomayor, Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., concurring). 153. Id. 154. Id. at 2831-32 (Stevens, J., concurring) (quoting Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U.S. 23, 26 (1914)) (footnote call number omitted). 155. Doe, 130 S. Ct. at 2829. 1100 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 27:4 What sort of ev......