TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. E. I. Young Co.

STATE v. E. I. YOUNG CO., Inc.

State v. E. I. Young Co., 103 So. 186 (La. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 2, 1925
Docket
No. 24948.
Judges
Land
Citations
103 So. 186157 La. 8451925 La. LEXIS 1979

Opinion of the Court — Land

LAND, J.

The demand of the state tax collector for license taxes on the occupation of defendant company as a wholesale merchant was rejected by the court below, under a plea of exemption from the payment of said taxes by said company as a manufacturer of cakes.

The demand for the payment of license taxes for the years 1919, 1920, and 1921 was made by the state tax collector under section 6 of Act 171 of 1898. and section 8 of Act 233 of 1920, the general license laws of the state. The exemption from payment of the license taxes demanded is claimed by said company under article 229 of the Constitution of 1913, which exempts from the payment of such taxes “manufacturers other than those of distilled, alcoholic or malt liquors, tobacco, cigars, and cotton seed oil.”

Defendant company was organized in the early part of the year 1920, has a capital invested of $135,000, and operates a modern baking plant in the city of New Orleans. Said company has in its employ an average of 55 persons during the year. , The processes of manufacturing cakes, from the mixing of the ingredients until the finished product is taken from the pans, are conducted wholly by machinery. The only hand labor used in the plant of said company is for icing and wrapping the cakes after they are baked. Defendant company makes a special brand of cakes, and does not manufacture or sell any other article.

In State v. Lanasa, 151 La. 706 , 92 So. 306 , we held that a baker, in whose establishment the various processes are conducted by electrically driven machinery is a “manufactur *847 er,” and is exempt from a license tax, under article 229 of the Constitution of 1913, though he bakes nothing but bread.

Under the facts before us, the present case is brought within the ruling in the Lanasa Case, and is controlled by it.

The rule taken by the state tax collector in this case was dismissed by the court below. The judgment appealed from is correct.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1927: 21932: 11947: 11955: 12002: 12018: 119272026peak 1927 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. JMCB, LLC v. Bd. of Commerce336 F. Supp. 3d 620 (M.D. La. 2018)
  2. State v. American Creosote Works, Inc.112 So. 412 (La. 1927)
  3. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blue Line Distributing, Inc.43 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002)
  4. State v. Gardner & Jacob Co.145 So. 521 (La. 1932) · Dissent
  5. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of Boston71 N.E.2d 874 (Mass. 1947)
  6. Ducuy v. Falgoust83 So. 2d 118 (La. 1955)

Most recent

  1. JMCB, LLC v. Bd. of Commerce336 F. Supp. 3d 620 (M.D. La. 2018)
  2. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blue Line Distributing, Inc.43 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002)
  3. Ducuy v. Falgoust83 So. 2d 118 (La. 1955)
  4. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of Boston71 N.E.2d 874 (Mass. 1947)
  5. State v. Gardner & Jacob Co.145 So. 521 (La. 1932) · Dissent
  6. State v. American Creosote Works, Inc.112 So. 412 (La. 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Lanasa, 92 So. 306 (La. 1922) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list