State v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | 32158. |
| Citation | 286 N.W. 359,205 Minn. 621 |
| Parties | STATE v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Gustavus Loevinger, Judge.
Action by the State against the Illinois Central Railroad Company for omitting gross earnings taxes. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Where it was found that the " Burlington formula" for computing tax on freight car per diem earnings was proper, and that the one proposed by the defendant was not a better formula than the " Burlington," the tax computed according to the " Burlington formula" violated no provision of the State Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Federal Constitution. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14.
Doherty, Rumble, Butler, Sullivan & Mitchell, of St. Paul, and R. C. Beckett and Chas. A. Helsell, both of Chicago, Ill. (V. W. Foster and E. C. Craig, both of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant.
J. A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., and John A. Weeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered in the court below after the orders denying the motions of both parties for amended findings or a new trial were affirmed. Decision filed February 17, 1939, rehearing denied March 14, 1939, 284 N.W. 360.
The errors assigned and urged on this appeal were presented on the former appeal and the decision therein must be considered final so far as this court is concerned. It having been found that the Burlington formula for computing the tax on freight car per diem earnings was proper, and that the one proposed by defendant ‘ is not a better formula than the Burlington’ it follows that the tax computed according to the Burlington formula violates no provision of the constitution of this state, and we are unable to see that the 14th amendment or any other provision of the federal constitution, U.S.C.A., is violated by the judgment rendered.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial