Court : US Supreme Court
Sarlls v. United States - 152 U.S. 570 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Sarlls v. United States, 152 U.S. 570 (1894) Sarlls v. United States No. 872 Submitted November 15, 1893 Decided April 9, 1894 152 U.S. 570 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Syllabus Lager beer is not "spirituous liquors" nor "wine" within the meaning of those terms as used in Revised Statutes 2139. The case is stated in the opinion. Page 152 U. S. 571 MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the Court. At the May term, 1892, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas, the plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted of introducing at the Choctaw Nation, in the Indian country, ten gallons of larger beer, which the indictment averred were "spirituous liquors," and the introduction of which into the Indian country was made an offense, punishable by fine and imprisonment, by section 2139, Revised Statutes of the Unit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Erhardt v. Steinhardt - 153 U.S. 177 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Erhardt v. Steinhardt, 153 U.S. 177 (1894) Erhardt v. Steinhardt Argued March 30, April 2, 1894 Decided April 23, 1894 153 U.S. 177 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Whether Boonekamp bitters, imported in September, 1889, were so similar to absinthe as to be susceptible of being assessed under the clause applicable to it was a question of fact properly left to the jury The jury having determined that fact adversely to the government, it follows that such bitters were at that time to be classified under the proprietary preparation clause of Schedule A of the Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, 22 Stat. 488, 494. The rate of duty on the bottles was dependent upon the rate of duty on the contents. Page 153 U. S. 178 This was an action to recover duties paid under protest on certain goods imported in September, 1889, and invoiced as "Boonekamp Bitters." The c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Adams - 155 U.S. 688 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U.S. 688 (1895) Postal Telegraph Cable Company v. Adams No. 649 Submitted December 3, 1894 Decided January 21, 1895 155 U.S. 688 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus While a state cannot exclude from its limits a corporation enraged in interstate or foreign commerce or a corporation in the employment of the general government by the imposition of unreasonable conditions, it may subject it to a property taxation incidentally affecting its occupation in the same way that business of individuals or other corporations is affected by common governmental burdens. The tax imposed by the laws of Mississippi (Code of 1880, c.10, 585; Sess.Laws 1888, c. 3), when enforced against a telegraph company organized under the laws of another state and engaged in interstate commerce in Mississippi, being graduated according to the amount and value ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1897)ILR24Cal157
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The petitioner, who has been convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Goalundo under Section 53 of the Excise Act (Bengal Act VII of 1878), for manufacturing a liquor called sanjivani sura without a license, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15, asks us to set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the act of the petitioner does not constitute any offence under Section 53 of the Act.2. The facts of the case are thus set out by the learned Deputy Magistrate in the brief statement of reasons under Section 263, Criminal Procedure Code:The accused, was found manufacturing a kind of liquor which he calls sanjivam sura, or life-reviving liquor. He has no license from the Collector to manufacture any liquor. The liquor was made by fermentation of gvr and different spices. The strength of the liquor is 36 degrees below London proof. Accused's act falls under the purview of Section 53 of Bengal Act VII of 1878. There is no doubt that he was ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Scott v. Donald - 165 U.S. 58 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58 (1897) Scott v. Donald Nos. 411-413 Argued October 21-22, 1896 Decided January 18, 1897 165 U.S. 58 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus Where a suit is brought against defendants who claim to act as officers of a state and under color of an unconstitutional statute commit acts of wrong and injury to the property of the plaintiff, to recover money or property in their hands unlawfully taken by them in behalf of the state, or for compensation for damages, such suit is not an action against the state within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Although the question of the jurisdiction of the court below has not been certified to this Court in the manner provided by the fifth section of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, yet, as the case is before it in a case in which the law of a state is clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Knowlton v. Moore - 178 U.S. 41 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900) Knowlton v. Moore{|178 U.S. 41fn1|1} No. 387 Argued December 6-7, 1899 Decided May 14, 1900 178 U.S. 41 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The plaintiffs in error were the executors of the will of Edwin F. Knowlton, of Brooklyn, New York. The defendant in error was the United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First Collection District for the New York. Mr. Knowlton died at Brooklyn in October, 1898, and his will was duly proved. Under the portion of the Act of Congress of June 13, 1898, which is printed at length in a note to the opinion of the Court in this case, the United States Collector of Internal Revenue demanded of the executors a return showing the amount of the personal estate of the deceased and the legatees and distributees thereof. This return the executors made under protest, asserting that the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana - 179 U.S. 89 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 89 (1900) American Sugar Refining Company v. Louisiana No 38 Submitted October 10, 1900 Decided November 6, 1900 179 U.S. 89 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus A state statute imposing a license tax upon persons and corporations carrying on the business of refining sugar and molasses does not, by exempting from such tax "planters and farmers grinding and refining their own sugar and molasses," deny sugar refiners the equal protection of the laws within the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a petition filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans by John Brewster, tax collector, against the American Sugar Refining Company, a corporation engaged in the business of refining sugar and molasses, to recover the sum of $3,500 per year as a state license tax for the years 1892 to 1897, inclusive, alleged to be due...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Austin v. Tennessee - 179 U.S. 343 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U.S. 343 (1900) Austin v. Tennessee No. 26 Argued November 9-10, 1899 Decided November 19, 1900 179 U.S. 343 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Syllabus Tobacco being a legitimate article of commerce, the court cannot take judicial notice of the fact that it is more noxious in the form of cigarettes than in any other. It is, however, to the same extent as intoxicating liquors, within the police power of the state. It is within the province of the legislature to declare how far. cigarettes may be sold, or to prohibit their sale entirely, after they have been taken from the original packages or have left the hands of the importer, provided no discrimination be used as against those imported from other states and there be no reason to doubt that the act in question is designed for the protection of the public health. Original packages are such as are used in bona fide tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Reymann Brewing Co. v. Brister - 179 U.S. 445 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Reymann Brewing Co. v. Brister, 179 U.S. 445 (1900) Reymann Brewing Company v. Brister No. 76 Submitted November 7, 1900 Decided December 17, 1900 179 U.S. 445 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus The statute of Ohio, known as the Dow Law, 83 Ohio Laws, 157, which levies a tax upon the business of trafficking in spirituous, vinous, malt or any intoxicating liquors, carried on within the state, is not in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States when applied to a corporation of West Virginia, having its principal place of business in Wheeling in that state and manufacturing there beer which it sends in barrels, or wooden cases containing several bottles each, to Ohio for sale Page 179 U. S. 446 or for storing in the original barrels, cases or bottles, to be sent out as stored to the State of Ohio for disposition and sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ambosini v. United States - 187 U.S. 1 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Ambosini v. United States, 187 U.S. 1 (1902) Ambosini v. United States No. 14 Argued December 4, 1901 Decided October 20, 1902 187 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Sections 8 and 7 of the War Revenue Act of 1898, 30 Stat. 448, c. 448, provided for certain stamp taxes on bonds, and other instruments enumerated in Schedule I of the act, but section 17 of the same act exempted "all bonds, debentures, or certificates of indebtedness issued by the officers of the United States government, or by the officers of any state, county, town, municipal corporation, or other corporation exercising the taxing power." The "Dramshop Act" of Illinois and the Revised Code of Chicago provided for the giving of bonds by all applicants to whom licenses were granted to sell liquor in the City of Chicago. Ambrosini gave two such bonds as required by the state sta...
Tag this Judgment!