Supreme Court of the United States, 1918

Locomobile Co. Of America v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 19, 1918 · Van Devanter

246 U.S. 146; 38 S. Ct. 298; 62 L. Ed. 631; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1529 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Charles A. Snow, with whom Mr. Frank T. Benner and Mr. William P. Everts were on the brief, for plaintiff in error., Mr. William Harold Hitchcock, Assistant Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts, with whom Mr. Henry C. Atbwill, Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts, was on the brief, for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle (District Court, W.D. Washington 1928)
Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1919)
Anniston Manufacturing Co. v. Davis (Supreme Court of the United States 1937)
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. Harmon (Mont. 1931)
J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Stewart (Mont. 1921)
Lawton Spinning Co. v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1919)
Commonwealth v. American Sugar Refining Co. (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1942)
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Virginia (Supreme Court of the United States 1937)
Great Northern Railway Co. v. State (Wash. 1928)
Badger v. Crockett, Secretary of State (Utah 1927)
Burrill v. Locomobile Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1922)
Old Dominion Co. v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1921)
Lever Bros. v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1919)

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. Justice Van Devanter

delivered the opinion of the court.

An excise tax of $1,300 imposed on a West Virginia corporation for doing a local business in Massachusetts during the year 1915 is here in question. The state court sustained it. 228 Massachusetts, 117. The corporation is engaged in manufacturing in Connecticut and sells its manufactured articles extensively in interstate commerce. It does both an interstate and a local business in Massachusetts. Each is of considerable volume, but the inter *147 state is much the larger, although this is not material. The tax is of a designated per cent, of the entire authorized capital, and was imposed after the maximum limit named in St. 1909, c. 490, Part III, § 56, was removed by St. 1914, c. 724, § 1. As thus changed the statute is in its essence and practical operation indistinguishable from those adjudged invalid in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1; Pullman Company v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56; Ludwig v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 216 U. S. 146, and Looney v. Crane Company, 245 U. S. 178. This we have just decided in International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, arde, 135.

Judgment reversed.

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