TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth v. Keystone Laundry Co.

Commonwealth v. Keystone Laundry Company

Commonwealth v. Keystone Laundry Co., 52 A. 326 (Pa. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 4, 1902
Docket
Nos. , No. 31
Judges
Bbown, Dean, Fell, Mestbezat, Mitchell, Potteb
Citations
52 A. 326203 Pa. 2891902 Pa. LEXIS 710
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Taxation — Laundry company — Manufacturing corporation. A corporation chartered for the purpose of “ cleansing, bleaching, starching and smoothing textile fabrics by the use o£ machinery and mechanical appliances, and the application of skilled manual operation,” the principal business of which is “washing and ironing,” is not a manufacturing corporation, merely because it manufactures soap and dyes for its own use instead of buying them.
Summary
Appeal, No. 31, May T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., Commonwealth Docket, 1900, No. 173, on appeal from tax settlement in case of Commonwealth v. Keystone Laundry Company. Appeal from tax settlement. The case was tried without a jury under the act of April 22, 1874. Weiss, J., found the facts to be as follows; 1. The defendant company is a domestic corporation organized “ for the purpose of cleansing, bleaching, starching and smoothing textile fabrics by the use of machinery or mechanical» appliances and the application of skilled manual operation.” 2, It reported the actual cash value of its capital stock to the auditor general for the year 1899 at $55,000, upon which the accounting officers of the state imposed a tax of five mills equal to $275, from which the defendant appealed, and filed specifications of objections thereto. 8. The company collects “ soiled cotton and woolen goods, household, hotel and restaurant goods and linens of all kinds,” and receives from manufacturers of cotton and woolen goods and fabrics, goods in process of manufacture and preparation for the market. The cotton and linen goods are washed in hot-water and soap until they are clean, then rinsed and washed again in a bleaching solution, then rinsed again, then rewashed in a coloring solution to which is added a scouring solution, which acts as a fixative, then starched by machinery, then thoroughly dried, then dampened and ironed. The process of coloring and bleaching is applied to all the wares except woolen goods. 4. The material is handled by skilled workmen of whom there are a large number and to whom a large sum of money was paid for wages during the tax year. 5. Its capital stock is invested exclusively in its plant and business, except the sum of $4,008.74, which is invested in towels, towel racks, soap, etc., which it places in business houses and offices, and launders them from time to time, and upon this part of the capital stock it has paid to the commonwealth $20.43, and appealed from the balance. The exemption from taxation is claimed under the provisions of the Act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 355. The court entered judgment for the commonwealth for $275, refusing the exemption claimed. Error assigned was the judgment of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam,

The appellant was incorporated for the purpose of “ cleansing, bleaching, starching and smoothing textile fabrics by the use of machinery and mechanical appliances, and the application of skilled manual operation.” Its principal business is, as properly stated by the court below, “washing and ironing.” In carrying on this business, it needs soap and dyes, and, even if it does manufacture these two articles for its own use, instead of buying them, such manufacture of them does not make the “washing and ironing” concern a “manufacturing plant and business,” as defined by statute, lexicon or judicial utterance.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1905: 11913: 11914: 11931: 11934: 11939: 11947: 21949: 21963: 11980: 11994: 119052026peak 1947 · 2

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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