Salt Company v. East Saginaw
Citation | 80 U.S. 373,20 L.Ed. 611,13 Wall. 373 |
Parties | SALT COMPANY v. EAST SAGINAW |
Decision Date | 01 December 1871 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Michigan; the case being thus:
The East Saginaw Salt Manufacturing Company filed a bill in the court below against the city of East Saginaw, in Michigan, to restrain the city from levying and enforcing any tax on certain real estate owned in the said city by it, and for a decree establishing the exemption claimed. The company founded its exemption on an act passed by the legislature of Michigan, on the 15th of February, 1859, for encouraging the manufacture of salt. The act was as follows:
The bill alleged that in April, 1859, after the passage of the above act, the salt company was organized as a corporation under the general laws of Michigan, for the purpose of manufacturing salt from salt water to be obtained in the State of Michigan; that prior to the act the State had been engaged in experiments, and had spent large sums of money to ascertain whether salt could be manufactured as aforesaid, but without any satisfactory results, and that the act was passed to encourage private parties to engage in the same experiments.
The bill proceeded:
'Your orator further shows that your orator is still engaged in the manufacture of salt, and has purchased and is using all its property for that purpose; said manufacture continuing at the place where it was first commenced by your orator.'
The bill then gave a description of the land owned by the complainant in East Saginaw, declaring that it had been in use by it for the purpose aforesaid, and stated the assessment thereof for taxes by the city authorities, and the threatened collection of the same, and prayed for an injunction and decree as before stated.
To this bill a demurrer was filed.
The court below overruled the demurrer, and sustained the prayer of the bill; but the Supreme Court of Michigan reversed this decree, and dismissed the bill. This decree of the Supreme Court was based upon an act of the legislature of Michigan, passed on the 15th of March, 1861, by which the act of 1859 was amended as follows: the first section, by adding a proviso limiting its benefits to those who should be actually engaged in the manufacture of salt prior to 1st of August, 1861; the second section, by limiting the exemption from taxation to five years from the organization of the company or corporation; and the third section (which granted a bounty of 10 cents per bushel), by limiting the bounty moneys that should be paid to any one individual, company, or corporation, to the sum of $5000. The Supreme Court of Michigan stated that it regarded the statute set up for a contract as a bounty law, and nothing more. From this decree the case was now here on error.
Mr. M. H. Carpenter, for the plaintiff in error, contended that the amendatory act, as applied to the salt company, was unconstitutional and void by reason of its impairing the validity of a contract; that the act of 1859 held out an inducement or offer to private parties to embark in the business of manufacturing salt in Michigan, and that when such parties did...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Jackson v. Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co
... ... Trust Company. From the judgment, the former appears ... Affirmed ... South Orange, 242 U.S. 100, 61, L.Ed. 170; Salt ... Manufacturing Company v. Saginaw, 13 Wall. 373, 20 L.Ed ... 611; ... ...
-
Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
...U. S. 398, 3 Sup. Ct. 205, 27 L. Ed. 976;East Saginaw Mfg. Co. v. Saginaw, 19 Mich. 259, 2 Am. Rep. 82;East Saginaw Salt Co. v. City of East Saginaw, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 373, 20 L. Ed. 611;Erie Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 66 Pa. 84, 5 Am. Rep. 351;Erie Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 49......
-
Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Wis.
...(Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527, 22 L. Ed. 805;West Wis. Ry. Co. v. Board, 93 U. S. 595, 23 L. Ed. 814;Salt Co. v. East Saginaw, 13 Wall. 373, 20 L. Ed. 611). If this clause of the federal Constitution were limited to executory contracts, the questions arising thereunder would not be so s......
-
People v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co.
...class. No vested right having been created by such certificate, no contract can be said to be impaired by its revocation. Salt Co. v. East Saginaw, 13 Wall. 373;Grand Lodge v. New Orleans, 166 U. S. 143, 147. It was said, in that case, that the construction is one which, though inconsistent......