State v. Cedar Grove Refining Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 January 1934 |
| Docket Number | 32614 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. CEDAR GROVE REFINING CO., Inc |
Rehearing Denied January 29, 1934
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; Robert Roberts, Judge.
Suit by the State against the Cedar Grove Refining Company, Inc. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Judgment set aside and judgment rendered for plaintiff.
Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., and Peyton R. Sandoz, Sp. Asst Atty. Gen. (R. J. O'Neal, of Shreveport, of counsel), for appellant.
Isaac Abramson, of Shreveport, for appellee.
O'NIELL, Chief Justice.
The state is claiming the license tax of 4 cents per gallon, levied by Act No. 6 of 1928 (Ex. Sess.), Act No. 16 of 1932, on motor fuel sold by the defendant. The defendant is engaged in the oil refining business, manufacturing and selling gasoline and other motor fuels. The tax is claimed on 302 gallons of a product called "tractor distillate" sold by the defendant on the 22d of May, 1933. Tractor distillate is a volatile gas-generating fluid, manufactured from crude oil, and having a flash point below 110 degrees F. It is not "commonly used to propel motor vehicles or motors," and is not used at all in high-compression motors, such as propel automobiles, but is used in low-compression motors, such as propel tractors used on farms or for constructing levees, etc. In fact, tractor distillate gets its name from its use as a fuel for tractors.
The defendant's refusal to pay the tax is founded upon the contention that the tax is levied, not upon the sale of "all volatile gas-generating liquids having a flash point below 110 degrees F.," but only upon the sale of such as are "commonly used to propel motor vehicles or motors." The district judge so ruled, and rejected the state's demand. The state has appealed from the decision.
The defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the constitutionality or legality of the tax is not in contest; the only question being whether the liquid sold is such as should subject the seller to the payment of the tax. The question at issue, however, is a question of constitutionality or legality of the tax. The dispute is not as to the character or quality of the liquid sold, called "tractor distillate"; the dispute is as to whether the statute shall be construed as levying the tax upon tractor distillate, which is admitted to be a "volatile gas-generating liquid having a flash point below 110 degrees F.," but not "commonly used to propel motor vehicles or motors." The defendant contends not only that the statute does not levy the tax upon the sale of any volatile gas-generating liquid having a flash point below 110 degrees F. except that which is "commonly used to propel motor vehicles or motors," but contends that, if the statute be construed so as to levy the tax upon the sale of such a liquid not "commonly used to propel motor vehicles or motors," the statute will violate section 16 of article 3, in that the text of the act will be broader than its title, and will violate the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is well settled that, in a suit to collect a tax, if the defense be such that a judicial interpretation of the tax statute is necessary to determine whether the tax demanded is levied upon the defendant, the legality of the tax is in contest, and the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. Downs, Tax Collector, v. Dunn, 162 La. 747, 111 So. 82. The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.
On the merits, the only question is whether the expression "as defined by law," in section 22 of article 6 of the Constitution, as amended pursuant to Act No. 219 of 1928, means "as already defined by law," or leaves the Legislature free to change the definition of "motor fuels." The section provides for the sources from which the highway fund shall be derived, and, as amended, it provides, as one of the sources:
"On gasoline, benzine, naphtha and other motor fuels, as defined by law, when sold, used or consumed in the State of Louisiana, there shall be levied a tax not to exceed four cents (4 cents) per gallon, to be collected as prescribed by law."
At that time the prevailing statute levying the tax on motor fuel, under section 22 of article 6 of the Constitution, was Act No. 142 of 1924, p. 242, which contained this definition (section 1):
"The term 'motor fuel' is defined as meaning all volatile gas-generating liquids having a flash point below 110 degrees F., commonly used to propel motor vehicles."
In Act No. 6 of 1928 (Ex. Sess.) levying the 4 cents tax under the constitutional amendment, motor fuel was defined thus (section 1):
"The term 'motor fuel' is defined as meaning all volatile gas-generating liquids having a flash point below 110 degrees F., commonly used to propel motor vehicles or motors."
In State v. Armbruster, 174 La. 914, 142 So. 125, 126, the state claimed the tax on the sale of a low-grade petroleum distillate which was not commonly used to proper motor vehicles or motors, and which was in fact not usable as a motor fuel. The state contended that the qualifying expression "commonly used to propel motor vehicles or motors" merely described the use of the motor fuel, and was not an essential part of the definition but this court held that that was an essential part of the definition, and consequently that the distillate was not within the definition, even though it was a volatile gas-generating liquid having a flash point below 110 degrees F. The decision was rendered on the 25th of April, and a rehearing was denied on the 23d of May, 1932; and, on the 7th of July, 1932, at a legislative session commenced on the 9th of May, 1932, the Legislature adopted Act No. 16 of 1932, amending the first section of Act No. 6 1928 (section 1), and adding seven new sections to the act (section 2). The only change made in the first section of the act was the omission of the words "commonly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Rice, Atty. Gen. v. Louisiana Oil Corporation
... ... Robertson ... v. Texaco Oil Co., 141 Miss. 356, 106 So. 449; Dresser v ... Hathorn, ... case referred to is State of Louisiana v. Cedar Grove ... Refining Co., 152 So. 531 ... This ... J. W. Funchess Sons, Inc., fifteen thousand six hundred ... fourteen gallons of ... ...
-
State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Ott, 40843
...was cited approvingly without any consideration being given to the soundness of the rule therein announced. State v. Cedar Grove Refining Co., Inc., 178 La. 810, 152 So. 531; State v. Whitehead Motor Co., Inc., 179 La. 710, 154 So. 912; State ex rel. Grosjean v. Standard Oil Company of Loui......
-
City of Lake Charles v. Wallace
...must be the direct result of the statute itself, and not merely the result of the method of administering it.' State v. Cedar Grove Refining Co., 178 La. 810, 152 So. 531. There is no merit in the instant contention advanced by Defendant further contends that Ordinance No. 1381 is invalid b......
-
Kemp v. Stanley
...imposed by law, but also to such appropriate duties as might thereafter be imposed by law. See State v. Cedar Grove Refining Company, 178 La. 810, 152 So. 531, 533, where it was held that the expression 'as defined by law,' in the Constitution (art. 6, � 22), did not mean 'as already defi......