Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 85 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 85 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


clause of the constitution. ''^ A state law imposing a penalty on a carrier failing
to adjust and pay within a specified time a claim for loss of freight while in
its possession, is not unconstitutional, as an interference with interstate com-
merced^

94. Removal of cause to federal court. conferring on congress the right to reg-
— State V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 97 Miss. ulate interstate commerce. Raleigh Iron
35, 51 So. 918, 53 So. 454, Ann. Cas. Works v. Southern R. Co., 148 N. C.
1912C, 1150. _ 469, 62 S. E. 595.

95. Equitable remedies. — Rosenbush v. Penalizing the failure to adjust and
Bernheimer, 211 Mass. 146, 97 N. E. 984, pay within a specified time claims for
Ann. Cas. 191.3A, 1317. loss or damage, as is done by Act S.

96. Time for making claim for dam- C. Feb. 23, 1903 (24 St. at Large, p. 81)
ages.— Judgment, Galveston, etc., R. Co. § 2, does not unlawfully interfere with
V. Armstrong (Te.x. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. interstate commerce, even as applied to
614, reversed in 46 S. W. 33, 92 Tex. 117. shipments from without the state, where

97. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harriman, the statute is construed by the state
227 U. S. 057, 33 S. Ct. 397, reversing courts only the liability of carriers do-
judgment (Tex. Civ. App.), 128 S. W. ing business in the state, for property
9''^2. lost or damaged while in tlieir possession.

98. Requiring payment of damages in Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Mazursky, 216 U.
prescribed time.— J'orter v. Charleston, S. 122, 54 L. Ed. 411, 30 S. Ct. 378. Af-
etc, R. Co., 41 S. E. 108, 63 S. C. 169, firming judgments, Charles v. Atlantic,
90 Am. St. Rep. 670. etc., R. Co., 78 S. C. 36, 58 S. E. 927,

99. De Lorme v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 125 Am. St. Rep. 762; McTeer v. South-
79 S. C. 370, 60 S. E. 440. crn Exp. Co. (S. C), 58 S. E. 930;

Revisal 1905, § 2634, subjecting a car- Mazursky v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. (S. C),

rier to a penalty for failure to adjust 58 S. E. 931; Von Lehe v. Atlantic, etc.,

and pay a claim for loss of or damage to R. Co., 78 S. C. 168, 59 S. E. 1135.
property within tlie time prescribed, does Revisal 1905, § 2644, which provides a

not impose an unlawful Iturdcn of inter- penalty for a carrier's failure to adjust

state commerce, in violation of the Con- a loss in a shipment of goods from with-

stitution of the United States art. 1, § 8, out the state within ninety days after a



§ 3935



CARRIERS.



3546



§ 3935. Lien on Vessel for Services and Material. — Local statutes sub-
jecting vessels to Hens for debts contracted in ecjuijjping and fitting them for
service are not regarded as amendments of the general maritime law, and, in the
absence of legislation by congress establishing a uniform rule, are upheld as ap-
plied to vessels engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and owned in other
states, as being in aid of commerce, by enabling such vessels to obtain credit for
necessaries when away from their home port.^ Proceedings for the enforce-
ment of a lien on a vessel for materials used in its construction, conferred by a
statute of a state though commenced after the vessel was enrolled, licensed, and
engaged in interstate commerce, were not objectionable, as in contravention of the
jurisdiction of federal courts in admiralty.- State statutes giving liens on ships
for necessary repairs or supplies furnished on the credit of the vessel, which are
enforceable by process in rem, in a court of admiralty, as arising under maritime
contracts, cannot be classed as laws intended to impose burdens upon interstate or
foreign commerce, and for that reason held unconstitutional, though applied to
foreign ships, but their purpose and effect, like liens given by the general mari-
time laws, are to facilitate commerce by enabling the ship to obtain the things nec-
essary to the prosecution and completion of her voyage.^

Lien for Surveying Logs. — A lien given by state statute on logs cut in an-
other state for surveying and scaling them by the surveyor general while in a
log boom does not constitute a burden on interstate commerce, but is a lawful



claim for such loss is filed with it, is not
in violation of the constitution of the
United States, art. 1, § 8, conferring on
congress the right to regulate interstate
commerce, since the penalty is in no
sense a burden on interstate commerce,
but is in aid of such traffic, and, in the
absence of congressional legislation to
the contrary, is a proper subject of state
regulation. Morris-Scarboro-Moffitt Co.
V. Southern Exp. Co., 146 N. C. 167, 59
S. E. 667, 15 L. R. A., N. S., 983.

Act 1903 (24 St. at Large, p. 81), pro-
viding a penalty of $50 to be paid the
consignee by a carrier doing business in
the state, for failure to adjust and pay
within a certain time a claim for loss of
freight while in its possession, is not
unconstitutional as an interference with
interstate commerce, even in case of an
interstate shipment. Charles v. Atlantic,
etc., R. Co., 78 S. C. 36, 58 S. E. 927,
125 Am. St. Rep. 762; Mazursky v. At-
lantic, etc., R. Co. (S. C), 58 S. E. 931;
Von Lehe v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 78 S.
C. 168, 59 S. E. 1135.

Act Feb. 23, 1903 (24 Stat, at Large,
p. 81), imposing a penalty of $50 to be
paid the consignee by a carrier doing
business within the state for failure to
adjust and pay claim for loss of freight
while in its possession within a specified
time, is not unconstitutional as an at-
tempt to regulate interstate commerce.
Winslow Bros. & Co. v. Atlantic, etc., R.
Co., 79 S. C. 344, 60 S. E. 709.

Act 1903 (24 St. at Large, p. 81), pro-
viding a penalty to be paid the consignee
by a carrier for failure to adjust and pay
within a certain time a claim for loss of
freight while in its possession, does not



violate the interstate commerce clause of
the federal constitution, in case of a
shipment from out of the state into it,
part of which was delivered by the final
carrier to the consignee at destination,
so that, in the absence of explanation, it
is presumed the loss occurred while the
goods were in the possession of such car-
'ier, from whom recovery of the penalty
is sought. Colleton Mercantile, etc., Co.
V. Athntic, etc., R. Co., 82 S. C. 121, 62

O. ii. 6.

Laws 1908, c. 196, prescribing a pen-
alty of $25 to be recovered by a shipper
from a railroad that fails to settle, within
a prescribed time, his claim for damages
to fieight, is not void as a regulation of,
or interference with, interstate commerce.
Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Greenwald
(Miss.), 61 So. 426.

1. Lien on vessel for services and ma-
terial.— The Del Norte, 90 Fed. 506.

The exclusive control over interstate
commerce, vested in congress by the fed-
eral constitution or laws, is not infringed
by the enforcement against a vessel en-
gaged in interstate commerce of a lien
given by a state statute for materials fur-
nished for her construction. Judgment,
Delaney, etc.. Iron Co. v. Iroquois
Transp. Co., 142 Mich. 84, 105 N. W. 527,
113 Am. St. Rep. 566, affirmed in The
Winnebago, 205 U. S. 354, 51 L. Ed. 836,
27 S. Ct. 509.

2. Comp. Laws 1897, § 10,789; Dela-
ney, etc., Iron Co. v. Iroquois Transp.
Co., 105 N. W. 527, 142 Mich. 84, 113
Am. St. Rep. 566, affirmed in The Win-
nebago, 27 S. Ct. 509, 205 U. S. 354, 51
L. Ed. 836.

3. The Robert Dollar, 115 Fed. 218.



3547 REGULATION AND CONTROL. §§ 3935-3937

charge imposed by the state for furnishing additional facihties for navigation of
a waterway."*

§ 3936. Seizure for Taxes. — Where a large quantity of coal from which
shipments were being made to parties outside the state was seized by a city
marshal for taxes, replevin would not lie on the ground that the seizure was an
interference with interstate commerce; it appearing that some shipments were
made to points within the state.^

§ 3937. Entry of Satisfaction of Mortgage.— A code provision impos-
ing a penalty on a mortgagee whose mortgage has been satisfied for failure to
enter satisfaction of record after being requested to^do so, does not interfere
with interstate commerce in its application to nonresident mortgagees.^

4. Lien for surveying logs.— Lindsay, v. Molloy, 131 Mich. 465, 91 N. W. 750.
etc., Co. V. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126, 44 L. 6. Penalty for failure to enter satisfac-
Ed. 400, 20 S. Ct. 325. tion of mortgage.— Dittman, etc., Shoe

5. Seizure for taxes. — Pioneer Fuel Co. Co. v. Mixon, 24 So. 847, 120 Ala. 206.



CHAPTER XXXVI.

Taxation.

A. Power to Tax, § 3938.

B. Taxation Amounting to Regulation of Commerce, §§ 3939-3981.

a. In General, § 3939.

b. Tax on Corporations Engaged in Interstate Commerce, §§ 3940-3947.

(1) In General, § 3940.

(2) Tax on Gross Receipts, § 3941.

(3) Tax on Franchise or Privilege, § 3942.

(4) Tax on Capital Stock, § 3943.

(5) Tax on Transfer of Corporate Stock, § 3944.

(6) Tax on Right of Corporations to Consolidate, § 3945.

(7) Tax on Property Outside of State, § 3946.

(8) Tax on Property of Foreign Corporation, § 3947.

c. Tax on Gross Receipts, § 3948.

d. Tax on Passengers and Freight, §§ 3949-3950.

(1) Passengers, § 3949.

(2) Freight, § 3950.

e. Tax on Privilege and Occupation, § 3951.

f. Tax on Tolls, § 3952.

g. Tax on Means and Instruments of Commerce, §§ 3953-3979.

(1) In General, § 3953.

(2) Tax on Railroads, §§ 3954-3959.

(a) In General, § 3954.

(b) Tax on Franchise, Privilege and Occupation, § 3955.

(c) Tax on Capital Stock, § 3956.

(d) Tax on Rolling Stock, § 3957.

(e) Tax on Gross Earnings, § 3958.

(f) Payment of Bonus to State, § 3959.

(3) Tax on Street Railroads, § 3960.

(4) Tax on E.xpress Companies, § 3961.

(5) Tax on Sleeping Cars, § 3962.

(6) Tax on Refrigerator Cars, § 3963.

(7) Tax on Ships, §§ 3964-3972.
- (a) In General, § 3964.

(b) Tax on Gross Receipts, § 3965.

(c) Tax on Interest of Citizen in Vessel, § 3966.

(d) Tax on Persons Residing on Ships, § 3967.

(e) Tax on Agents, Pilots, etc., § 3968.

(f) Registered under Laws of United States, § 3969.

(g) Registered in Another State, § 3970.
(h) Tax on Particular Ships, § 3971.

(i) Wharfage Fees, § 3972.

(8) Tax on Ferries, § 3973.

(9) Tax on Bridges, § 3974.

(10) Tax on Automobiles, § 3975.

(11) Tax on Draymen, § 3976.

(12) Tax on Pipe Lines, § 3977.

(13) Tax on Warehouses and Elevators, § 3978.

(14) Tax on Packing Houses, § 3979.
h. The Unit Rule, § 3980.

i. Stamp Duty on Bills of Lading, § 3981.



3549



TAXATION.



§ 3938



§ 3938. Power to Tax. — The constitution contains no express restriction
of the power of the states to tax, other than a prohibition to lay any duty of
tonnage, or any impost, or duty on imports or exports, except what may be ab-
sohitely necessary for executing the state's inspection laws. It may, therefore,
be regarded as the established doctrine that so long as the laws of the state,
prescribing the mode and subject of taxation, do not entrench upon the legiti-
mate authority of the Union, or violate any right recognized, or secured, by the
constitution of the United States, they are valid.i Every tax upon personal
property, or upon occupations, business, or franchises, affects more or less the
Subjects, and the operations of commerce, yet it is not everything that affects
cornmerce that amounts to a regulation of it, within the meaning of the consti-
tution.- But when a law of a state imposes a tax, under such circumstances and
with such _eff"ect as to constitute a regulation of commerce, either foreign or
interstate, it is void on that account.^ The supreme court of the United States
has held in a great number of cases that a tax levied directly upon interstate
business alone, or upon such business where it is carried on in connection with
local business, and also a requirement that persons or corporations shall take
out a license and pay a tax before they can conduct an interstate or local busi-



1. Taxation. — Kirtland v. Hotchkiss,
100 U. S. 491. 25 L. Ed. 558; Low v. Aus-
tin (U. S.), 13 Wall. 29, 30 L. Ed. 517;
Gibbons v. Ogden (U. S.), 9 Wheat. 1,
G L. Ed. 23; Nathan v. Louisiana (U. S.),
8 How. 73, 12 L. Ed. 993; Ward v. Mary-
land (U. S.), 12 Wall. 418, 20 L. Ed. 449.

"Persons and corporations engaged in
interstate business may be subjected to
the payment of taxes properly levied by
the state upon their property within its
borders and also on business wholly con-
ducted within the state, and it is like-
wise conceded that no state has the
power to lay a direct tax or burden upon
interstate commerce." Leavenworth v.
Ewing, 80 Kan. 58, 101 Pac. 664.

Although authority is conferred upon
congress to lay and collect taxes, yet this
grant does not supersede the power of
the state to tax for the support of their
own governments, nor is the exercise of
that power by the states unless it extends
to objects prohibited by the constitution,
an exercise of any portion of the power
that is granted to the United States.
State Tonnage Tax Cases (U. S.), 12
Wall. 204, 20 L. Ed. 370; Webber v. Vir-
ginia, 103 U. S. 344, 26 L. Ed. 565; Welton
V. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. Ed. 347;
Low V. Austin (U. S.), 13 Wall. 29, 20
L. Ed. 517; Ward v. Maryland (U. S.),
12 Wall. 418, 20 L. Ed. 449.

Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8, gives congress
power to regulate commerce among the
several states, etc., and § 10 forbids any
state without the consent of congress to
lay any imposts or duties on imports or
exports except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing its inspection
laws, and hence interstate commerce can
not be taxed by the state. Smith i'. Farr,
104 Pac. 401, 46 Colo. 364.

Under Const. U. S., art. 1, § 8, giving
congress the power to regulate commerce
smong the several states, etc., interstate



commerce can not be taxed by a state.
Wilcox V. People, 104 Pac. 408, 46 Colo.
382.

2. Commerce affected indirectly. — State
Tax on Railway Gross Receipts (U. S.),
15 Wall. 284, 21 L. Ed. 164; Delaware
Railroad Tax (U. S.), 18 Wall. 206, 21
L. Ed. 888; Case of the State Freight Tax
(U. S.), 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. Ed. 146;
Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 29 L.
Ed. 257, 5 S. Ct. 1091; Bowman v. Chi-
cago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 31 L-
Ed. 700, 8 S. Ct. 689, 1062; American Re-
frigerator Trans. Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S.
70, 43 L. Ed. 899, 19 S. Ct. 599; New
York, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158
U. S. 431, 39 L. Ed. 1043, 15 S. Ct. 896.

3. Law constituting regulation of inter-
state commerce. — Brown v. Maryland (U.
S.), 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. Ed. 678; Moran
V. New Orleans, 112 U. S. 69, 28 L. Ed.
653, 5 S. Ct. 38, citing Telegraph Co. v.
Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. Ed. 1067;
Crandall v. Nevada (U. S.), 6 Wall. 35,
18 L. Ed. 744; Case of the State Freight
Tax (U. S.), 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. Ed. 146;
State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts (U.
S.), 15 Wall. 284, 21 L. Ed. 164; Osborne
V. Mobile (U. S.), ]6 Wall. 479. 21 L. Ed.
470; State Tonnage Tax Cases (U. S.),
12 Wall. 204, 20 L. Ed. 370.

A statute of a state enacting that the
masters and wardens of a port within it,
should be entitled to demand and re-
ceive, in addition to other fees, the sum
of five dollars, whether called on to per-
form any service or not, for every vessel
arriving in that port, is a regulation of
commerce within the meaning of the con-
stitution, and also a duty on tonnage, and
is unconstitutional and void. Steamship
Co. V. Portwardens (U. S.), 6 Wall 31
18 L. Ed. 749.

A state can not tax interstate com-
merce. State V. Pabst Brewing Co.. 128
La. 770, 55 So. 349.



3938



CARRIERS.



3550



ness, is a burden on commerce between the states, and a regulation which be-
longs exclusively to congress.'*

State Can Not Tax in Any Form. — It is well settled that a state cannot lay
a tax upon interstate or foreign commerce in any form, whether ])y way of
duties laid on the transportation of the subjects of that commerce, or on the
receipts derived from that transportation, or on the occupation or business of
carrying it on. The reason is that such taxation is a burden on that commerce,
and amounts to a regulation of it, which belongs solely to congress.^

Tax on Right to Engage in Commerce. — The state may not tax the right
to carry on interstate commerce or to conduct the business of the government.*' ''

Subject National in Character. — Whenever the subjects in regard to which
a power to regulate commerce is asserted are in their nature national, or admit
of one uniform system or plan of regulation, they are exclusively within the
regulating control of congress.'''

Where Property Located within State. — Neither the constitution nor laws
of the United States prohibit a state from taxing the property of persons and
corporations engaged in foreign and interstate commerce where the property is
located in such state. ^

Tax as Police Regulation. — If a corporation, although engaged in the busi-
ness of interstate commerce, so carries on its business as to justify at the hands
of any municipality a police supervision of the property and instrumentalities
used therein, the municipality is not bound to furnish such supervision for
nothing, and may, in addition to ordinary property taxation, subject the cor-
poration to a charge for the expense of the supervision.^

Tax Affecting Both Intrastate and Interstate Business. A general li-
cense tax, imposed by a state statute on a carrier, affecting its entire business,
interstate as well as domestic or internal, without discrimination, is unconsti-
tutional. ^"^ Interstate commerce can not be taxed at all, even though the same



4. Leavenworth v. Ewing, 80 Kan. 58,
101 Pac. 664, citing Crutcher v. Kentucky,
141 U. S. 47, 35 L. Ed. 649, 11 S. Ct. 851;
Leloup V. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 32 L.
Ed. 311, 8 S. Ct. 1380; Norfolk, etc., R.
Co. V. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S. 114, 34
L. Ed. 394, 10 S. Ct. 958; Coleman v.
Western Union Tel. Co., 75 Kan. 609, 90
Pac. 299.

5. State can not tax in any form. — -Le-
loup V. Mobile. 127 U. S. 640, 32 L. Ed.
311, 8 S. Ct. 1380.

No state can levy a tax on interstate
commerce, whether by duties laid on the
transportation of that commerce, or on
the receipts derived from that transporta-
tion, or on the occupation or business of
carrying it on. Postal Telegraph-Cable
Co. V. Mobile. 179 Fed. 955.

6. Tax on right to engage in commerce.
—State V. Western Union Tel. Co., 43
Mont. 445, 117 Pac. 93.

7. Subject national in character.— Case
of the State Freight Tax (U. S.), 15 Wall.
232, 21 L. Ed. 146.

Transportation of passengers or mer-
chandise through a state, or from one
state to another, is of this nature. Case
of the State Freight Tax (U. S.), 15 Wall.
232, 21 L. Ed. 146.

Hence, a statute of a state imposing a
tax upon freight, taken up within the
state and carried out of it, or taken up
without the state and brought within it,
is repugnant to that provision of the con-



stitution of the United States, which or-
dains that "congress shall have power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the several states, and with
the Indian tribes." Case of the State
Freight Tax (U. S.), 15 Wall. 232, 21 L.
Ed. 146.

8. Where property located within state.

— Hammer v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 208 Mo.
622, 106 S. W. 1005.

9. As police regulation. — Borough of
Norwood V. Western Union Tel. Co., 25
Pa. Super. Ct. 406.

10. Tax on occupation or business. —
Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460,
36 L. Ed. 1067; Western Union Tel. Co.
V. Massachusetts, 125 U. S. 530, 31 L. Ed.
790, 8 S. Ct. 961; Leloup v. Mobile, 12r
U. S. 640, 32 L. Ed. 311, 8 S. Ct. 1380;
Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296, 320, 39-
L. Ed. 430, 15 S. Ct. 367; McCall v.
California, 136 U. S. 104, 34 L. Ed.
392, 10 S. Ct. 881; St. Louis v. West-
ern Union Tel. Co., 148 U. S. 92, 37 L..
Ed. 380, 13 S. Ct. 485; Asher v. Texas, 12S
U. S. 129, 32 L. Ed. 368, 9 S. Ct. 1.

A state statute was enacted imposing"
an annual tax on cars of the Pullman
Company running into and beyond the
state as well as between points within the
state. Held, void as imposing a burden
upon interstate commerce. Allen v. Pull-
man's Palace Car Co., 191 U. S. 171, 48:
L. Ed. 134, 24 S. Ct. 39.



3551 TAXATION. §§ 3938-3939

amount of tax should be laid on domestic commerce, or that which is carried
on solely within the state. ^^ It is equally well settled that persons or companies
carrying on a domestic business in connection with interstate business may be
subjected to the payment of a state tax imposed on purely domestic busi-
ness. ^^

Tax Affecting- Intrastate Business Only.— A statute is valid where a.
proper construction of it conlines the tax which it creates to the intrastate busi-
ness, and in no way relates to the interstate business of the company. The stat-
ute of Missouri enacted for the purpose of imposing a tax upon express com-
panies doing business within the state, and brought before the court in this case,
does not impose a tax upon the receipts arising from interstate business, and is
not therefore repugnant to commercial clause of the constitution of the United
States.13

Interstate Shipment to Intrastate Points. — The receipts from continuous
transportation between points in the same state may be taxed in that state,
though the route lies partly in another state. Such transportation is not inter-
state commerce. ^^

§§ 3939-3981. Taxation Amounting to Regulation of Commerce—
§ 3939. In General. — In the decisions in which state laws have been held in-
operative because in conflict with, or amounting to the exercise of, or the asser-
tion of control over, a power vested exclusively in the United States, the inter-
ference with the commercial power was found to be direct, and not the mere
incidental effect of the requirement of the usual proportional contribution to pub-
lic maintenance.^^ A tax which so seriously affects the interchange of commodi-
ties between the states as to essentially impede or seriously interfere with it, is a
regulation of commerce.^*'

Taxation Distinguished from Regulation of Commerce.— The difficulty
has been, and is, to distinguish between legitimate attempts to exert the taxing
power of the state and those laws which, though in the guise of taxation, impose
real burdens upon interstate commerce as such.^" The state must be allowed to
tax the property, and to tax it at its actual value as a going concern. On the
other hand, the state can not tax the interstate business. The two necessities
hardly admit of an absolute logical reconciliation. Yet the distinction is not with-

11. Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. lock v. Ailing, 93 U. S. 99, 23 L. Ed. 819;
S. 622, 47 L. Ed. 336, 23 S. Ct. 229. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 31 L.

12. Leavenworth v. Ewing, 80 Kan. 58, Ed. 508, 8 S. Ct. 564; McCall v. California,
101 Pac. 064. 136 U. S. 104, 34 L. Ed. 392, 10 S. Ct. 881.

13. Tax on intrastate business only.— ^?- Hinson v. Lott (U. S.), 8 Wall. 148,
Pacific Exp. Co. V. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, ''^i^-^'^- ^J^' ^. ,. • .. ^ ,

35 L. Ed. 1035 12 S Ct 250 . ^^- Taxation distmguished from regula-
1/1 T„4.^.-o* *1 u- ^ J • ^ J. ^ *i°" of commerce. — This difficulty was
r.n]t. r Shipment to intras ate recognized in Galveston, etc., R. Co. v.
r? Tt^'^^'^a^'''' ,r'\^'\'?'\^^^'^''^ Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. Ed. 1031, 28
K. Co. (la.), 1 MonuH. 45, 1, Atl. 179. s. Ct. 638. wherein the possible differ-
15. Taxation amounting to regulation of cnces between the decisions in Philadel-
commerce.— Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. phia, etc., Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania,
V. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 39 L. Ed. 311, 122 U. S. 326, 30 L. Ed. 1200, 7 S. Ct.
15 S. Ct. 263, citmg Western Union Tel. 1118, and Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co.,
Co. V. Massachusetts, 125 U. S. 530, 31 142 U. S. 217, 35 L. Ed. 994. 12 S. Ct.
L. Ed. 790, 8 S. Ct. 961; Ratterman v. 121, were commented upon and explained.
Western Union Tel. Co., 127 U. S. 411, Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the
32 L. Ed. 229, 8 S. Ct. 1127; Pullman's court, said: "By whatever name the ex-
Palace Car Co. V. Pennsylvania, 141 U. action may be called, if it amounts to no
S. 18, 35 L. Ed. 613, 11 S. Ct. 876; Mas- more than the ordinary tax upon prop-
sachusetts v. Western Union Tel. Co., 141 crty, or a just equivalent therefor, ascer-
U. S. 40, 35 L. Ed. 628, 11 S. Ct. 889; laincd l)y reference thereto, it is not open
Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U. S. to attack as inconsistent with the consti-
217, 35 L. Ed. 994, 12 S. Ct. 121; New tution." United States Exp. Co. 7'. Minne-
York, etc., R. Co. r. IVnnsylvania. 158 U. sota, 223 U. S. 335 56 E l-'d 459 32 S



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 85 of 214)