Singer Manuf Co v. Wright

Decision Date07 December 1891
Citation12 S.Ct. 103,141 U.S. 696,35 L.Ed. 906
PartiesSINGER MANUF'G CO. v. WRIGHT, Comptroller General, et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Suit by the Singer Manufacturing Company against William A. Wright, comptroller general of the state of Georgia, and Lovick P. Thomas, sheriff of Fulton county, Ga., to enjoin the collection of taxes. The circuit court denied the injunction, and dismissed the bill. 33 Fed. Rep. 121. Complainant appeals.

The facts of the case fully appear in the following statement by Mr. Justice FIELD:

The appellant, the complainant below, is a corporation formed under the laws of New Jersey. The defendant Wright is the comptroller general of the state of Georgia, and the defendant Thomas the sheriff of one of its counties, both citizens of that state. The complainant is engaged, in New Jersey, in the manufacture of sewing-machines and articles employed in their use. These it sends, and has been in the habit of sending for many years, to Georgia, where it keeps on hand in its buildings a large stock, and sells them to consumers, or by subagents sent through the state. In December, 1886, the legislature of Georgia passed an act to raise revenue for the fiscal years of 1887 and 1888, which, among other things, provided for the collection of a license tax from the vendors of sewing-machines in the state. The bill alleges that in this tax the act discriminates between retail dealers who are individuals and dealers who are companies, or wholesale dealers in machines on which the tax required has not been paid by the manufacturing companies, in this: that it requires of the latter the payment of $200 for the purpose of doing business in the state, and, in addition, a tax of $10 for each agent employed; while of the former no tax at all is required. It is therefore contended that the act in this respect violates the seventh article of the state constitution, requiring uniformity of taxation upon the same class of subjects, and also the last clause in the first section of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, which declares that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' and thereby imposes a limitation upon all the powers of the state which can touch the individual or his property. The bill sets forth, in substance, that notwithstanding these alleged grounds of invalidity in the law, the comtroller general of the state is seeking to enforce the collection of the tax, and has placed, or is about to place, for this purpose, executions in the hands of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • C. Thomas Stores Sales Sys., Inc. v. Spaeth, 32550.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 28 de março de 1941
    ...694, affirmed Clark v. Titusville, 184 U.S. 329, 22 S.Ct. 382, 46 L.Ed. 569;Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, C.C., 33 F. 212, appeal dismissed 141 U.S. 696, 12 S.Ct. 103, 35 L.Ed. 906. (c) Exemption of manufacturers and producers of food from a specific tax is permissible. Morrow v. Henneford, 18......
  • Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 22 de novembro de 1972
    ...an effective decree could be rendered, or that such a situation was not a "case" or "controversy." In Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696, 12 S.Ct. 103, 35 L.Ed. 906 (1891), a Georgia tax was alleged to discriminate impermissibly between two classes of retailers. Singer brough......
  • Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth of Pa.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 8 de março de 1974
    ...L.Ed. 1448 (1938); Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360, 39 S.Ct. 512, 63 L.Ed. 1030 (1919); Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 141 U.S. 696, 12 S.Ct. 103, 35 L.Ed. 906 (1891); State of Alabama ex rel. Baxley v. Woody, supra; Davis v. Ichord, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 442 F.2d 1207 (......
  • Poe v. Ullman Doe v. Ullman Buxton v. Ullman, s. 60
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 19 de junho de 1961
    ...L.Ed. 264. 7. See, e.g., San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 116 U.S. 138, 6 S.Ct. 317, 29 L.Ed. 589; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 141 U.S. 696, 12 S.Ct. 103, 35 L.Ed. 906; Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293; Kimball v. Kimball, 174 U.S. 158, 19 S.Ct. 639, 43 L.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT