Gulf Fisheries Co. v. MacInerney, 276 U.S. 124 (1928)

U.S. Supreme Court, (February 20, 1928)

Docket number: 178
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20025883
Id. vLex: VLEX-20025883

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

Supreme Court of Georgia - WAGES et al. v. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION., 233 Ga. 712, 214 S.E.2.d 349 (1974)

Constitution of the United States (Annotated) - Section 10: Powers Denied to the States

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court GULF FISHERIES CO. v. MACINERNEY, 276 U.S. 124 (1928)

[Page 276 U.S. 124, 127]

filling orders. None are placed in cold storage plants. All are shipped from the wharf as fast as they can be re-iced, washed, handled, and loaded as above stated. Nearly all are shipped on the day they are unloaded from the boats. Occasionally, some are held in the ice boxes on the wharf for more than 48 hours. All are sold to wholesale dealers in quantities of from 50 to 400 pounds. None are sold to retailers.

The tax is laid, not according to the weight of the fish when landed, but upon the fish sold. [Footnote 1] All that is sold, has been handled as above stated. None of it has remained in its original condition. None is in an original package, and little in its original form. This is obviously true of the 75 per cent. which is beheaded and gutted and of the 7 to 10 per cent. more which is gutted and gilled with the heads on. But the small remainder is, when sold, no longer in its original condition. Before sale, it is washed and re-iced. It is taken from the bulk and put loose with ice in barrels. And all this has been done on the wharf. These facts make inapplicable cases like Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Low v. Austin, 13 Wall. 29; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U.S. 566. All the fish sold have, after landing and before laying the tax, been so acted upon as to become part of the common property of the state. They have lost their distinctive character as imports and have become taxable by the state. Compare Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U.S. 506, 43 S. Ct. 643

Affirmed. Footnotes

Footnote 1 Compare Adams Fish Market v. Sterrett, 106 Tex. 562, 563, 564, 172 S. W. 1109; Rev. Civ. St. Tex. 1911, art. 3987; Pen. Code Tex. 1911, art. 917; Gen. Laws Tex. 1913, p. 272, c. 135 (article 917); page 299, c. 146 ( article 3987); Gen. Laws Tex. 1919 (1st Called Sess.) c. 73, art. 16; Gen. Laws Tex. 1925, p. 439, c. 178 (article 16).

Other documents:
wakefield (alan b.) v. commonwealth of pennsylvania, harmar township, allegheny county, pennsylvania, trooper kaltenborn, sabulsky (arthur), 831 f.2d 288 (... | Granger v. Waukesha-Pearce, 932 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1991) | 36 CFR 1222.20 Agency responsibilities. | 36 USC 220705 - Sec. 220705. Governing body | entscheidung der kommission vom 16. januar 2001 zur festlegung von zwei ref... | ANUNCIO de la Direccion General de Espectaculos Publicos, Juego y Actividades Recreativas, por el que se notifica Resolucion de ... | Mercamadrid paga gastos personales del director general y de su familia | Acordo do 29 de xaneiro de 2003, da Delegación Provincial da Coruña, polo que se somete a información ... | anuncio de licitacion de concurso de consultoria pd 1270/2006 . | 50 USC 403 - Sec. 403j. Central Intelligence Agency; appropriations; expenditures | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Madrid - Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, of December 2... | Case of Audiencia Provincial Valencia n 267/00 of May 08 2000 | Consulta no Vinculante of Subdireccion General de IRPF n 0794-97, of April 16, 1997