United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore v. Kentucky

Citations

• 231 U.S. 394
• 34 S. Ct. 122
• 58 L. Ed. 283
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2576

Syllabus

<p>A State may lay an excise or privilege tax on conducting commercial agencies unless it has the effect of directly violating a Federal right such as burdening interstate commerce.</p> <p>Courts will not interfere with the exercise of the taxing power of a State on the ground that it violates the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution unless it appears that the burden is direct and substantial.</p> <p>The license tax imposed by § 4224, Kentucky Statutes, 1909, on persons or corporations having representatives in the State engaged in the business of inquiring into and reporting upon the credit and standing of persons engaged in business in the State, is not unconstitutional as a burden on interstate commerce as applied to a non-resident engaged- in publishing and distributing a selected list of guaranteed attorneys throughout the United States and having a representative in that State.</p> <p>In this case held, that the service rendered in furnishing a list of guaranteed attorneys did not, except incidentally and fortuitously, affect interstate commerce and that it was within the power of the State to subject the business to a license tax. Ficklen v. Shelby County, 145 U. S. 1 followed. International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91, distinguished.</p>