Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Wells, Fargo & Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1902No. S.F. No. 2136Published

The complaint, besides alleging the unlawful exaction of the internal-revenue tax of one cent from the plaintiff, alleged that,1 ‘the defendant is, and ever since the twelfth day of July, 1898, has been, unlawfully and without right asking and demanding of all persons within this state who do and transact any express business with defendant in this state, the payment by such person of the internal-revenue tax.”

Read the full summary

The complaint, besides alleging the unlawful exaction of the internal-revenue tax of one cent from the plaintiff, alleged that,1 ‘the defendant is, and ever since the twelfth day of July, 1898, has been, unlawfully and without right asking and demanding of all persons within this state who do and transact any express business with defendant in this state, the payment by such person of the internal-revenue tax.” The answer expressly admitted this averment, with the exception of denying that its action was unlawful or without right. The answer also claimed that it was the duty of the shipper,…

1Dissent

I dissent and adhere to the views expressed in the opinion handed down upon the first hearing of this cause. (64 Pac. Rep. 702.) It was there said, and it is undoubtedly true, that if no essential difference exists between the facts of the case before this court and those of the Michigan case carried before the supreme court of the United States, and reported in 177 U.S. 404, the decision of the latter case will be absolutely determinative of the question and binding upon this court. This court had before it then only so much of the record of the Michigan case as was published with the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. American Express Co. v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. People v. Wells, Fargo & Co.California Supreme Court · 1902

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API