Texas Co. v. State
Decision Date | 04 April 1927 |
Docket Number | Civil 2506 |
Citation | 31 Ariz. 485,254 P. 1060 |
Parties | THE TEXAS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Joseph S. Jenckes, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with instructions.
Messrs Prosser & Freeman, Mr. Edward J. Flanigan and Messrs Ellinwood & Ross, for Appellant.
Mr John W. Murphy, Attorney General, and Mr. A. R. Lynch Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
In 1921 the fifth legislature of the state of Arizona passed chapter 116 of the Session Laws of that year, being an act entitled "To provide a license tax on gasoline; to provide for the collection thereof, . . . " and for other purposes. Sections 1, 2 and 7 thereof read as follows:
The act further provided that all dealers in gasoline should file a certificate showing various matters in regard to the character of the dealer and its responsible officials or agents; that they should render proper reports of the gasoline sold, keep a record of their purchases and sales, and pay the tax so levied to the Secretary of State at certain times and in a certain manner.
In 1922 the same legislature in special session (chapter 24) amended sections 2 and 7 above quoted to read as follows:
[Italics ours.]
In pursuance of these acts the Texas Company, a corporation, hereinafter called appellant, filed its certificate as dealer and rendered its accounts and made payments to the Secretary of State as provided in the acts up to June 9th, 1923. During this period appellant was primarily a manufacturer selling at wholesale gasoline made by it and brought into the state of Arizona for the purpose of thus being sold at wholesale. It neither owned nor operated any so-called "filling stations" within the state, and the small quantity of gasoline which it sold direct to consumers represented an exception to its general policy of selling only at wholesale.
In 1923 the sixth legislature in regular session passed and sent to the Governor Senate Bill No. 156, entitled "An act . . . providing for the raising of funds . . . by means of . . . a tax . . . upon gasoline and other distillates of crude petroleum, . . . " and for other purposes. Section 10 of the bill was divided into three subsections, and subsection 3 had some nine paragraphs, lettered (a) to (i), inclusive. Those paragraphs material to the determination of this case are quoted below:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel Rice, Atty.-Gen. v. Allen
... ... Pensacola, 108 Fla. 480, 146 So. 654; Rainier ... National Park Co. v. Martin, D. C., 18 F.Supp. 481; ... Johnson v. Diefendorf, 56 Idaho 620, 57 P.2d 1068; ... Fox v. Frank, 52 Ohio App. 483, 3 N.E.2d 996; ... Morrow v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 625, 47 P.2d 1016; ... Texas Co. v. State, 31 Ariz. 485, 254 P. 1060, 1062, ... 53 A. L. R. 258; Standard Oil Co. v. Brodie, 153 ... Ark. 114, 239 S.W. 753. Cf. In re Opinion of the ... Justices, N. H., 88 N.H. 500, 190 A. 801 ... This ... brings us to the right of the appellant to the requested ... ...
-
Gaulden v. Kirk
...57 P.2d 1068; Fox v. Frank, 52 Ohio App. 483, 3 N.E.2d 996; Morrow v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 625, 47 P.2d 1016; Texas Co. v. State, 31 Ariz. 485, 254 P. 1060, 1062, 53 A.L.R. 250; Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114, 239 S.W. 753 Cf. In re Opinion of the Justices, 88 N.H. 50......
-
Morton v. Godfrey L. Cabot, Inc.
...case of Lang v. Mayor, etc., of the City of Bayonne 74 N.J.Law 455, 68 A. 90, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 93. In the case of Texas Co. v. State, 31 Ariz. 485, 254 P. 1060, 53 A.L.R. 258, the Court followed the Carroll and Lang cases, and refused to compel payment of gasoline taxes unpaid because of an ......
-
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation, 15356
...v. Western Coach Corp., 112 Ariz. 215, 540 P.2d 687 (1975); Austin v. Campbell, 91 Ariz. 195, 370 P.2d 769 (1962); Texas Co. v. State, 31 Ariz. 485, 254 P. 1060 (1927). Since the challenged provision is superfluous in light of the 1968 amendments to the racing statutes, the provision may be......