Hammond Packing Co. v. Montana
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Best Foods, Inc. v. Welch (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 1929)
- Edwards v. United States (9th Cir. 1937)
- Southern Boulevard R. Co. v. City of New York (2d Cir. 1936)
- Mid-Northern Oil Co. v. Walker (Mont. 1922)
- Brackman v. Kruse (Mont. 1948)
- United States Gypsum Co. v. State Board of Equalization (Mont. 1944)
- Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Seattle (Supreme Court of the United States 1934)
- Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee (Supreme Court of the United States 1933)
- Georgia Public Service Commission v. Saye & Davis Transfer Co. (Ga. 1930)
- Fisher Flouring Mills Co. v. Brown (Wash. 1920)
- Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1971)
- McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1940)
- McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1940)
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Grosjean (Supreme Court of the United States 1937)
- Carolene Products Co. v. Harter (Pa. 1937)
- New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Telegraph Co. v. Dolan (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)
- People v. . Peterson (N.Y. 1921)
- Bush v. Southern Grocery Co. (Ark. 1918)
- Price v. Illinois (Supreme Court of the United States 1915)
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
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action to recover a license-tax of one cent per pound sold for carrying on the business of selling oleomargarine. The. answer, with some allegations not now material, admitted the facts and set up that § 4064 of the Political Code of Montana as amended by § 2763, Revised Codes, by which the tax was imposed, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. That is the only question raised here, so that other incidental or preliminary matters need not be mentioned. Judgment was entered for the State on the pleadings and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State.
The argument for the'plaintiff in error is that, the tax being pronounced or assumed by the state courts to be a tax for revenue, it is unjustifiable to put oleomargarine in a class by itself and to discriminate, for instance, between it and butter. But we see no obstacle to doing so in the Constitution of the United States. Apart from interference with commerce among the States, a State may restrict the manufacture of oleomargarine in a way in which it does not hamper that of butter. Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 245, 246. It even may forbid the manufacture altogether. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678. It may express and carry out its *334 policy as well in a. revenue as in a police law. Quong Wing v. Kirdendall, 223 U. S. 59, 62. The case really has been disposed of by previous decisions of. this court. McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 62, 63.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.