Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert

Citations

• 142 U.S. 339
• 12 S. Ct. 250
• 35 L. Ed. 1035
• 1892 U.S. LEXIS 1976

Syllabus

<p>A bill in equity which alleges (1) that a statute of a State imposes a tax upon interstate commerce, and is therefore void as forbidden by the Constitution of the United States, and which sets out the provision complained of from which it appears that the tax was imposed only on business done within the State, (2) that the act denies to the complainant the equal protection of the laws of the State, and is therefore void by reason of violating the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) that? the act is not uniform and equal in its operation,.and is void by reason of repugnance to the constitution of the State; .and which seeks on these grounds an injunction against the collection of the tax, presents no ground justifying the interposition of a court of equity to enjoin the collection of the tax.</p> <p>The act of the legislature of Missouri of May 16, 1889, “ to define express companies, and to prescribe the mode of taxing the same, and to fix the rate of taxation thereon,” imposes a tax only on business done within the State, and does not violate the requirements of uniformity and equality of taxation prescribed by tlie constitution of the State of Missouri.</p> <p>Diversity of taxation, both with respect to the amount imposed and the various species of property selected, either for bearing its burdens or for being exempt from them, is not inconsistent with a perfect uniformity and equality in taxation, and of a just adaptation of property to its burdens.</p> <p>A system of taxation which imposes the same tax upon every species of property, irrespective of its nature, or condition, or class, will be destructive of the principle of uniformity and equality in taxation, and of a just adaptation of property to its burdens.</p> <p>A state statute which defines an express company to be persons and corporations who carry oh the business of transportation on contracts for hire with railroad or steamboat companies, does not invidiously discriminate against the express companies, d