TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lansing v. Theo. H. Davies & Co.

THEODORE F. LANSING, Treasurer of the Territory v. THEO. H. DAVIES & COMPANY, LIMITED

Lansing v. Theo. H. Davies & Co., 13 Haw. 286 (1901)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Hawaii Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 26, 1901
Judges
Erear, Frear, Galbraith, Perry
Citations
13 Haw. 2861901 Haw. LEXIS 86
Headnotes
Section's 764-768, Penal Laws, which impose a license tax upon the sale of imported goods, are unconstitutional.
Summary
Original.

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

Opinion of the Court — Frear

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

OPINION OP THE COURT BY FREAR, C.J.

This is a submission on agreed facts.

The question is whether Sections 764-768 of the Penal Laws,, relating to “merchandise licenses” are unconstitutional. These sections provide, among other things, that “the annual fee for a license to sell imported goods, wares and merchandise” shall be $50 if the gross annual sales are less than $20,000 and -g of 1 % of the sales if over $20,000, and impose a penalty upon “any person who shall sell imported goods, wares or merchandise without a license” under these sections.

The defendant is a Hawaiian corporation with its principal place of business in Honolulu. Its sales of goods imported from foreign countries (exclusive of the United States) for the year ending June 30, 1900, amounted to $661,312.48, and of those brought from the United States, $915,601.90. If the statute is constitutional as to either or both of these classes of goods the license fee would be $2,529.92 for one class, $3,433.50 for the other class and $5,976.90 for both classes. It is agreed that judgment may be entered for the plaintiff for one of these sums or for the defendant according as the court finds the law.

Attorney-General E. P. Dole for plaintiff. Hatch & Billiman for defendant.

The statute is in conflict with at least two provisions of the Constitution of the United States, namely, the clause in Art. 1, Sec. 8, which gives to Congress the power, “To regulate commeree with foreign nations, and among the sevez*al States, and with the Indian tribes,” and that in Art. 1, Sec. 10, which provides that, “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws.”

The Supreme Court of the United States has held many times that a State tax upon goods in their character as imported goods or goods coming from another State is forbidden by these provisions of the Constitution, and that within the meaning of these provisions it is immaterial whether the tax is laid directly upon the goods themselves or only indirectly in the form of a tax upon the person or the business, as for instance, by charging a license fee for the sale of the goods. See among other cases: Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wh. 419 ; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 ; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 ; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344 ; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446 ; Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640 ; Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62 .

Judgment for defendant.

How later courts describe this case

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

1902: 11911: 11912: 11940: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bishop v. Mahiko35 Haw. 608 (1940)
  2. Smithies v. Conkling20 Haw. 600 (1911)
  3. In re the Appeal of the Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co.21 Haw. 6 (1912)
  4. Macfarlane & Co. v. Wright1 D. Haw. 206 (D. Haw. 1902)

Most recent

  1. Bishop v. Mahiko35 Haw. 608 (1940)
  2. In re the Appeal of the Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co.21 Haw. 6 (1912)
  3. Smithies v. Conkling20 Haw. 600 (1911)
  4. Macfarlane & Co. v. Wright1 D. Haw. 206 (D. Haw. 1902)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275 (1876) 399
Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640 (1888) 244
Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 418 (1871) 234
Walling v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446 (1886) 134
Webber v. Virginia, 103 U.S. 344 (1881) 126
Voight v. Wright, 141 U.S. 62 (1891) 50

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