Spector Motor Service v. Laughlin, 62

Decision Date04 December 1944
Docket NumberNo. 62,62
Citation65 S.Ct. 152,323 U.S. 101,89 L.Ed. 101
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. J. Ninian Beall, of Washington, D.C., and Cyril Coleman, of Hartford, Conn., for petitioner.

Mr. Frank J. Di Sesa, of Stamford, Conn., for respondent.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit brought in a United States district court to enjoin the enforcement of a State tax and for a deciaratory judgment.

The Connecticut Corporation Business Tax Act of 1935, as amended, imposed on every corporation, not otherwise specially taxed, carrying on or having the right to carry on business within the State 'a tax or excise upon its franchise for the privilege of carrying on or doing business within the state * * *.' Conn.Gen.Stat.Cum.Supp.1935, § 418c, as amended by Conn.Gen.Stat.Supp.1939, § 354e. Petitioner, a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, is engaged exclusively in the interstate trucking business. It is neither authorized by Connecticut to do intrastate trucking nor in fact does it engage in it. It maintains two leased terminals in Connecticut solely for the purpose of carrying on its interstate business. At the request of its lessor, it has filed with the Secretary of State in Connecticut a certificate of its incorporation in Missouri, has designated an agent in Connecticut for service of process, and has paid the statutory fee. On this state of facts the State Tax Commissioner determined that petitioner was subject to the Act of 1935, as amended, and assessed the tax against Spector for the years 1937 to 1940. Whereupon petitioner brought this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to free itself from liability for the tax. Alleging appropriate grounds for equitable relief, petitioner claims that the 'tax or excise' levied by the Act does not apply to it; and in the alternative that, if it should be deemed within the scope of the statute, the tax offends provisions of the Connecticut Constitution as well as the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, art. 1, § 8, cl. 3, and amend. 14.

The District Court construed the statute to be 'a tax upon the exercise of a franchise to carry on intrastate commerce in the state' and therefore not applicable to petitioner. Spector Motor Service v. Walsh, 47 F.Supp. 671, 675. On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit construed the statute to reach all corporations having activity in Connecticut, whether doing or authorized to do intrastate business or, like the petitioner, engaged exclusively in interstate commerce. It further decided all contentions under the Con- necticut Constitution against the petitioner. And so, the court below found itself compelled 'to face directly the main issue whether the tax is in fact an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.' 139 F.2d 809, 813. The dissenting judge thus phrased the issue: '(W)e have before us in the barest possible form the effort of a state to levy an excise directly upon the privilege of carrying on an activity which is neither derived from the state, nor within its power to forbid.' 139 F.2d at page 822. It was conceded below that if the Connecticut tax was construed to cover petitioner it would run afoul the Commerce Clause, were this Court to adhere to what Judge Learned Hand called 'an unbroken line of decisions.' On the basis of what it deemed foreshadowing 'trends', the majority ventured the prophecy that this Court would change its course, and accordingly sustained the tax. In view of the far-reaching import of such a disposition by the Circuit Court of Appeals we brought the case here. 322 U.S. 720, 64 S.Ct. 1155.

Once doubts purely local to the Constitution and laws of Connecticut are resolved against the petitioner there are at stake in this case questions of moment touching the taxing powers of the States and their relation to the overriding national interests embodied in the Commerce Clause. This is so whether the issue be as broad and as bare as the District Court and Judge Learned Hand formulated it, or whether the Connecticut statute carries a more restricted meaning. If Connecticut in fact sought to tax the right to engage in interstate commerce, a long course of constitutional history and 'an unbroken line of decisions' would indeed be brought into question. But even if Connecticut seeks merely to levy a tax on the net income of this interstate trucking business for activities attributed to Connecticut, questions under the Commerce Clause still remain if only because of what the court below called 'ingenious provisions as to allocation of net income in the case of business carried on partly without the state.' 139 F.2d 809, 812.

We would not be called upon to decide any of these questions of constitutionality, with their varying degrees of defficulty, if, as the District Court held, the statute does not at all apply to one, like petitioner, not authorized to do intrastate business. Nor do they emerge until all other local Connecticut issues are decided against the petitioner. But even if the statute hits aspects of an exclusively interstate business, it is for Connecticut to decide from what aspect of interstate business she seeks an exaction. It is for her to say what is the subject matter which she has sought to tax and what is the calculus of the tax she seeks. Every one of these questions must be answered before we reach the constitutional issues which divided the court below.

Answers to all these questions must precede consideration of the Commerce Clause. To none have we an authoritative answer. Nor can we give one. Only the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut can give such an answer. But this tax has not yet been considered or construed by the Connecticut courts. We have no authoritative pronouncements to guide us as to its nature and application. That the answers are not obvious is evidenced by the different conclusions as to the scope of the statute reached by the two lower courts. The Connecticut Supreme Court may disagree with the District Court and agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals as to the applicability of the statute....

To continue reading

Request your trial
571 cases
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • January 21, 1958
    ...statute by the state courts or until efforts to obtain such an adjudication have been exhausted. See Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101; Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committee, C. I. O. v. Windsor, 347 U.S. 901, 74 S.Ct. 429, 98 L......
  • United States v. Sullivan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • June 28, 1967
    ...Compare Hillsborough Township v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620, 66 S.Ct. 445, 90 L.Ed. 358 (1946) with Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944). But the question whether an adequate remedy exists in the state courts is a thicket which need not be e......
  • Klim v. Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • July 17, 1970
    ...86 L.Ed. 1355 (1942); or whether, under state law, a statute in question was applicable at all, Spector Motor Service Co. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105-106, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944). On the other hand, abstention is improper where there is before the court no controlling questio......
  • Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • August 14, 1970
    ...state law. See, e. g., Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, Inc., 316 U.S. 168, 62 S.Ct. 986, 86 L.Ed. 1355; Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 89 L.Ed. 1725. The second of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Michael L. Eber, When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 58-1, 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...what would be the event of an appeal in the case before it."), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101 (1944). 189 See United States v. Caldwell, 543 F.2d 1333, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (opinion of Bazelon, C.J., in support of rehearing en banc)......
  • Ascertaining the laws of the several states: positivism and judicial federalism after Erie.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 145 No. 6, June - June 1997
    • June 1, 1997
    ...of the courts in a democratic society." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975); see, e.g., Spector Motor Serv. v. McLaughlin, Inc., 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944) ("If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not......
  • Should the Supreme Court stop inviting amici curiae to defend abandoned lower court decisions?
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 63 No. 4, April 2011
    • April 1, 2011
    ...392 U.S. 206 (1968) (No. 638) (on file with the Earl Warren Papers, Library of Congress). (284.) Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (285.) See, e.g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 645-46 & n.3 (1961) (overruling a prior case and holding that the Fourteenth Amendmen......
  • Born-Again RFRA: Will the Military Backslide on its Religious Conversion?
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 87 No. 2, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...(citing Emp. Div., Dep't of Hum. Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)). (241) Id. (242) Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (243) Id. at 105. (244) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 736 (2014). (245) Larsen v. U.S. Navy, 346 F. Supp. 2d 122, 1......
  • 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