TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Curdts v. S. C. Tax Commission

CURDTS ET AL. v. S. C. TAX COMMISSION; McBEE v. SAME

Curdts v. S. C. Tax Comm'n, 127 S.E. 438 (S.C. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 1, 1925
Docket
No. 11732
Judges
Watts, Messrs, Fraser, Marion, Chiee, Gary, Coti-Iran
Citations
127 S.E. 438131 S.C. 3621925 S.C. LEXIS 134

Opinion of the Court — Watts

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Watts.

“These cases were brought to test the validity of the Act of March 26, 1923,. which imposes a tax upon places of amusement. By agreement with the Attorney General, the decision in this case was to be binding upon all places in the state in like situation. The issue raised is a clear challenge to the constitutionality of the act.

“It is maintained in the exceptions that the act is unconstitutional in four particulars: First, that it is a special law where a general law would suffice; second, that the tax is not uniform and equal; third, that it is a taking of property without due process of law as inhibited by^" the State Constitution; and, fourth, a violation' of the due process clause of the United States Constitution.”

These exceptions are overruled under the authority of Budd v. State of New York, 145 U. S., 517 ; 12 S. Ct., 468 ; 36 L. Ed., 247 , and for the further reason that it was clearly the intent of the Legislature, in passing the act in question, that if the proviso was declared by the Court to be unconstitutional that the remainder of the act should remain unaffected. A reading of the act clearly indicates this.

All exceptions.are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Fraser and Marion concur.

Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Coti-iran did not participate.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11950: 11951: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Budd v. New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892) 184
Dowling v. Exch. Bank of Boston, 145 U.S. 512 (1892) 17

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