Bowman v. Continental Oil Co.
Citations
- 256 U.S. 642
- 41 S. Ct. 606
- 65 L. Ed. 1139
- 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1548
Syllabus
<p>A statute of New Mexico (Laws 1919, c. 93, p. 182), applicable to distributers of gasoline, imposes an excise of 2 'cents for each gallon sold or used, and an annual license tax of 850.00,' payable - in advance, -for each distributing station, place of business or agency; • and makes it a penal offense to carry on the business without, paying the license tax. Held: — . ' ■</p> <p>(1) That the excise provision, assuming it intended to include both . interstate and domestic transactions, is not therefore void in tato, in its application to a distributer engaged in both, since, the subject-matter being separable', full protection can be afforded by enjoining enforcement as to the interstate business. P. 646.</p> <p>(2) But that the license tax, falling with its prohibition upon the business as a'whole, cannot constitutionally be applied where -interstate and intrastate., business necessarily are conducted indiscriminately at the same stations and by the same agencies. P. 647.</p> <p>(3) That gasoline imported by the distributer from another State but used'in the conduct of its business'', loses its interstate character and may be subjected to the excise, consistently with the Commerce Clause. P. 648. .'</p> <p>(4) That the tax upon the use is not a tax on tangible property, within . the meaning of § 1 of Article VIII of the New Mexico constitution,' but in effect, as in name, an excise tax, and conforms to the require.ment of that section that taxes shall be equal and uniform upon subjects of taxation of the same class. P. 649.</p> <p>(5) The excise tax, as applied to local sale and Use of gasoline by a distributer, is consistent with the due process'and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 649.</p> <p>Reversed.</p>
Judges: Pitney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
93 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court· 1932-04-11· cited 745×
- James v. Dravo Contracting Co.Supreme Court· 1937-12-06· cited 542×
- Miller Brothers Co. v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1954-05-03· cited 331×
- Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co.Supreme Court· 1924-02-25· cited 268×
- Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp.Supreme Court· 1937-02-01· cited 231×
- Sprout v. South BendSupreme Court· 1928-05-14· cited 217×
- Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co. of EmbdenSupreme Court· 1922-02-27· cited 188×
- National Geographic Society v. California Board of EqualizationSupreme Court· 1977-04-04· cited 175×
- Sonneborn Brothers v. CuretonSupreme Court· 1923-06-11· cited 172×
- Gregg Dyeing Co. v. QuerySupreme Court· 1932-05-31· cited 159×
- Reif v. BarrettIllinois Supreme Court· 1933-12-22· cited 137×
- Monamotor Oil Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court· 1934-04-02· cited 113×
- Texas Co. v. BrownSupreme Court· 1922-04-24· cited 110×
- Edelman v. Boeing Air Transport, Inc.Supreme Court· 1933-04-17· cited 108×
- Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Co. v. GallagherSupreme Court· 1939-01-30· cited 106×
- Cooney v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court· 1935-03-04· cited 98×
- Di Santo v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1927-01-03· cited 96×
- Department of Treasury v. Wood Preserving Corp.Supreme Court· 1941-04-28· cited 94×
- Amos v. GunnSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-04-07· cited 91×
- Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Co.Supreme Court· 1947-03-10· cited 87×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. REESESupreme Court· 1876-03-27· cited 427×
- Crutcher v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1891-05-25· cited 324×
- Leloup v. Port of MobileSupreme Court· 1888-05-14· cited 283×
- Ohio Tax CasesSupreme Court· 1914-03-09· cited 79×
- Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. CharlestonSupreme Court· 1894-05-14· cited 70×
- Williams v. City of TalladegaSupreme Court· 1913-01-06· cited 65×
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Alabama State Board of AssessmentSupreme Court· 1889-12-16· cited 51×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.