Supreme Court of the United States, 1904

Carstairs v. Cochran

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 23, 1904 · Brewer

193 U.S. 10; 24 S. Ct. 318; 48 L. Ed. 596; 1904 U.S. LEXIS 976 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. D. K. Este Fisher, Avith whom Mr. W. Cabell Bruee Avas on the brief, for plaintiff in error :, Mr. 0.1. Telloit and Mr. B. G. Melntosh for defendant in error:

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

American Smelting & Refining Co. v. County of Contra Costa (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)
Rowe v. Braden, Tax Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 1932)
Eastern Gulf Oil Co. v. Kentucky State Tax Commission (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1926)
Commonwealth ex rel. Sheriff Woodford County v. Greenbaum (Ky. Ct. App. 1910)
Scott v. State (Md. 1983)
City of Detroit v. Murray Corp. of America (Supreme Court of the United States 1958)
Tax Commission v. Melvale Distillery Co. (Md. 1922)
Pagels v. Beaman (Ohio Ct. App. 1918)
Thompson v. Kentucky (Supreme Court of the United States 1908)
Hathaway v. Edwards (Ind. Ct. App. 1908)
Thompson v. Commonwealth (Ky. Ct. App. 1906)
Anderson County v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky 1906)
Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland (Supreme Court of the United States 1954)
Miller Bros. v. Maryland (Supreme Court of the United States 1954)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. McGoldrick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1939)
Brooke v. City of Norfolk (Supreme Court of the United States 1928)
Terrace v. Thompson (Supreme Court of the United States 1923)
Ewa Plantation Co. v. Wilder (Haw. 1922)
DeGanay v. Lederer (Supreme Court of the United States 1919)
Hannis Distilling Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore (Md. 1911)
Hannis Distilling Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (Supreme Court of the United States 1910)
Scottish Union & National Insurance v. Bowland (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. J ustice Brewer

delivered the opinion of the court;

That the statutes in question do not conflict with the Constitution of Maryland is settled by the decision of its highest court. Merchants' Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, and cases cited; Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., 169 U. S. 557, 566; Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198, 200.

A State has the undoubted power to tax private property having a situs within its territorial limits, and may require the-party in possession of the property to pay the taxes thereon.

“ Unless restrained by provisions of the Federal Constitution, the power of the State as to the mode, form and extent of taxation is unlimited, where the subjects to which it applies are within her jurisdiction.” State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 319; “ Statutes sometimes provide that tangible personal property shall be assessed wherever in the State it may be, either to the owner himself or to the agent or other person having it in charge; and there is.no doubpof the right to’do this, whether the owner is resident in the State or not.” 1-Cooley on Taxation, 3d ed., p. 653. See also Coc v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517; Marye v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 127 U. S. 117, 123; Pullman's Car Company v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18; Ficklin v. Shelby County, 145 U. S. 1, 22; Savings Society v. Multnomah County, 169 U. S. 421, 427; New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U. S. 309; Board of Assessors v. Comptoir National, 191 U. S. 388; National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; Merchants' Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461.

That under Federal legislation distilled spirits may be left in a warehouse for several years, that there is no specific provision in the statutes in question giving to the proprietor who pays the taxes a right to recover interest thereon, and that for spirits so in bond negotiable warehouse receipts have been is *17 sued, do not affect the question of the power of the State.. The State.is under na obligation to make its legislation conformable to the contracts which the proprietors of bonded warehouses may make with those who store spirits therein, but it is their business, if they wish further protection than the lien given by the statute, to make their contracts accordingly.

We see no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and it is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.