Standard Oil Co v. Graves
Citation | 63 L.Ed. 662,249 U.S. 389,39 S.Ct. 320 |
Decision Date | 14 April 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 177,177 |
Parties | STANDARD OIL CO. v. GRAVES |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Oscar Sutro, of San Francisco, Cal., Richard A. Ballinger, of Seattle, Wash., E. S. Pillsbury, of San Francisco, Cal., Alfred Battle and Bruce C. Shorts, both of Seattle, Wash., and F. D. Madison and Alfred
Sutro, both of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. L. L. Thompson, W. V. Tanner, and Glenn J. Fairbrook, all of Olympia, Wash., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 390-391 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court
Plaintiff in error filed a complaint and an amended complaint in the superior court of Thurston county, Washington, to enjoin the collection of fees prescribed by the Oil Inspection Act of that state upon the ground that the statute was in contravention of the Constitution of the United States. The superior court held the law to be unconstitutional. Upon appeal the Supreme Court of Washington reversed the judgment. 94 Wash. 291, 162 Pac. 558.
The statute is the 'State Oil Inspection Law' (Laws 1907, p. 412) of the state of Washington. Its provisions are thus summarized in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the state:
The case was heard upon demurrer to the amended complaint.
Among other things, the amended complaint set out:
'The plaintiff maintains in the state of Washington wharves and docks, tanks, warehouses. buildings, machinery, horses and wagons, and other equipment for receiving, shipping, handling, selling and otherwise distributing said products shipped as aforesaid from the state of California into the state of Washington.'
The fees collected under the inspection acts are set out in the amended bill of complaint:
The total receipts from the fees collected under said statute, chapter 192 of the Laws of 1907, and chapter 161, Laws of 1905, of the state of Washington, for the inspection therein provided for of said products mentioned in said laws intended for sale or consumption in this state, and the total disbursements in connection with the collection thereof, and in connection with the administration of said laws, and the net revenue from such receipts during the following years have respectively been the following:
Date Receipts Disbursements Revenue June 30 to Dec. 31, 1905 $ 5,693.19 $ 4,947.70 $ 745.49 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1906 $ 9,539.86 $ 6,610.80 $ 2,929.06 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1907 $19,084.29 $ 7,551.70 $11,532.59 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1908 $23,493.93 $ 8,684.87 $14,809.06 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1909 $24,799.67 $ 8,802.90 $15,996.77 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1910 $35,174.64 $ 8,469.00 $26,705.64 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1911 $38,344.42 $ 8,762.85 $29,581.57 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1912 $48,489.73 $ 8,860.80 $39,628.93 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1913 $51,816.91 $ 8,859.00 $42,957.91 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1914 $79,339.66 $ 8,553.75 $70,785.91 ------------ ------------ ------------ 335,776.30 $80,103.37 $225,672.93
It thus appears that the expense of administration of the statutes from 1905 to 1914 was $80,103.37. The total receipts for the same time $335,776.30, a difference of $255,672.93.
It is contended by the plaintiff in error that this inspection law violates the commerce clause, article 1, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, in that it directly burdens such commerce by imposing inspection taxes far in excess of the cost of inspection. The Supreme Court of the state held that the tax was not upon property, but could be sustained as an excise or occupation tax upon the business of selling oil within the state. The reason given by the court for holding that the tax could not be upheld as a property tax rested upon provisions of the state Constitution.
While this court follows the decisions of the highest court of a state, as to the meaning of statutes in cases of this character, the name given to the statute is not conclusive. It must be judged by its necessary effect, and if that is to violate the Constitution of the United States, the law must be declared void. Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 319, 10 Sup. Ct. 862, 34 L. Ed. 455; Crew Levick v. Pennsylvania, 245 U. S. 292, 294, 38 Sup. Ct. 126, 62 L. Ed. 295, and cases cited.
That the state may pass proper inspection laws for oils brought into its borders in interstate commerce, there can be no question. But, taking the allegations of the complaint to be true, as we must for present purposes, the cost of the inspection was greatly less than the tax imposed. The general...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McCollum, 28809.
......744, that notice of appeal must be served on. all parties who appear in an action was. questioned--overruled--in Deno v. Standard Furniture. Co., 190 Wash. 1, 3, 66 P.2d 1158. . . The. rule enunciated in Wood v. Nichols, 6 Wash. 96, 32. ... the action the automobile had been repossessed by the. vendor.'. . . . Standard Oil Co. v. Graves, 94 Wash. 291, 162 P. 558, questioned by Union Oil Co. v. State, 125 Wash. [17 Wn.2d 166] 327, 328, 216 P. 22, as the oil inspection ......
-
Burnet v. Coronado Oil Gas Co
...S. Ct. 375, 66 L. Ed. 721; Bowman v. Continental Oil Co., 256 U. S. 642, 41 S. Ct. 606, 65 L. Ed. 1139, and Standard Oil Co. v. Graves, 249 U. S. 389, 39 S. Ct. 320, 63 L. Ed. 662; Union Tank Line v. Wright, 249 U. S. 275, 283, 284, 39 S. Ct. 276, 63 L. Ed. 602, qualifying Pullman's Palace-......
-
Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co Same v. Gulf States Paper Corporation
...355, 75 L.Ed. 839; Wagner v. City of Covington, 251 U.S. 95, 102, 104, 40 S.Ct. 93, 94, 64 L.Ed. 157, 168; Standard Oil Co. v. Graves, 249 U.S. 389, 394, 39 S.Ct. 320, 63 L.Ed. 662, we see no reason to doubt that the present statute is an exertion of the taxing power of the state. Cf. Carle......
-
Jaybird Mining Co v. Weir
...41 S. Ct. 606, 65 L. Ed. 1139; Askren v. Continental Oil Co., 252 U. S. 444, 40 S. Ct. 355, 64 L. Ed. 654; Standard Oil Co. v. Graves, 249 U. S. 389, 39 S. Ct. 320, 63 L. Ed. 662; also Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 226, 28 S. Ct. 638, 52 L. Ed. 1031, qu......