May v. New Orleans
Citations
- 178 U.S. 496
- 20 S. Ct. 976
- 44 L. Ed. 1165
- 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1696
Syllabus
<p>May & Co., merchants at New Orleans, were engaged in the business of importing goods from abroad, and selling them. In each box, or case in which they were brought into this country, there would be many packages, each of which was separately marked and wrapped. The importer sold each package separately. The city of New Orleans taxed the goods after they reached the hands of the importer (the duties having been paid) and were ready for sale. Held :</p> <p>(1) That the box, case or bale in which the separate parcels or bundles were placed by the foreign seller, manufacturer or packer was to be regarded as the original package, and when it reached its .destination for trade or sale and was opened for the purpose of using or exposing to sale the separate parcels or bundles, the goods lost their distinctive character as imports and each parcel or bundle became a part of the general mass of property in the State and subject to local taxation;</p> <p>(2) That Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, established these propositions: 1. That the payment of duties to the United States gives the right to sell the things imported, and that such right to sell cannot be forbidden or impaired by a State; 2. That while the things imported retain their character as imports, and remain the property of the importer, “ in his warehouse, in the original form or package in which it was imported,” a tax upon it is a duty on imports within the meaning of the Constitution; 3. That-a State cannot, in the form of a license or otherwise, tax the right of the importer to sell, but when the .importer has so acted upon the goods imported that they have been incorporated or mixed with the general mass of property in the State, such goods have then lost their distinctive character as imports, and have become from that time subject to state taxation, not because they are the products of other countries, but because they are -property within the State ' in like condition with other property that should co
Judges: Brewer, Fuller, Harlan, Peckham, Shiras
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
62 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Hooven & Allison Co. v. EvattSupreme Court· 1945-04-23· cited 189×
- Michelin Tire Corp. v. WagesSupreme Court· 1976-01-14· cited 188×
- Sonneborn Brothers v. CuretonSupreme Court· 1923-06-11· cited 172×
- American Steel & Wire Co. v. SpeedSupreme Court· 1904-02-23· cited 168×
- Austin v. TennesseeSupreme Court· 1900-12-03· cited 156×
- Rearick v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1906-12-17· cited 118×
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. BowersSupreme Court· 1959-02-24· cited 75×
- Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1933-02-06· cited 69×
- McGoldrick v. Gulf Oil Corp.Supreme Court· 1940-03-25· cited 65×
- I. M. Darnell & Son Co. v. City of MemphisSupreme Court· 1908-01-20· cited 64×
- Western Oil Refining Co. v. LipscombSupreme Court· 1917-06-04· cited 49×
- Volkswagen Pacific, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1972-05-10· cited 32×
- West India Oil Co. v. Sancho BonetSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1939-05-10· cited 25×
- Stanton & Sons v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1947-02-20· cited 23×
- Singer Co. v. County of KingsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1975-04-07· cited 21×
- City and County of Denver v. Denver Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Colorado· 1963-12-02· cited 19×
- Craig Corp. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1975-10-03· cited 18×
- United States v. Shallus & Co.Customs and Patent Appeals· 1919-04-18· cited 16×
- Tricon, Inc. v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1962-08-16· cited 15×
- Tres Ritos Ranch Co. v. AbbottNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1940-09-23· cited 14×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.