Citizens' Telephone Co. of Grand Rapids v. Fuller
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT .OF. THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT ■ OF 'MICHIGAN. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute - of Michigan taxing telephone companies and excepting therefrom certain classes thereof, are stated in the opinion. • An exemption of companies whose gross receipts do not exceed $500 per annum invalidates the act.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT .OF. THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT ■ OF 'MICHIGAN. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute - of Michigan taxing telephone companies and excepting therefrom certain classes thereof, are stated in the opinion. • An exemption of companies whose gross receipts do not exceed $500 per annum invalidates the act. Judicial construction' cannot enlarge or restrict the obvious meaning of the act.- Atty. Gen’l. v. Assessors, 143 Michigan, 73; Bate Refrigerator Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 37; Denn v. Reed, 10…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKenna
Appellant is a telephone company,>, located in the city of Grand Rapids, in.the State of Michigan, .where it has 10,000 telephones in use, and by its own and other lines is engaged in the telephone-business all over the southern peninsula. It brought this suit to restrain the collection of a tax levied on its property under a certain act of the State of Michigan, on the ground (I?) that the act violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the' United States .and.(2) violates the constitution of the State because the purpose of the act is not expressed in its title.
A demurrer was…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Bell's Gap Railroad v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Home Insurance v. New York StateSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- American Sugar Refining Co. v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by114 opinions
- F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Madden v. Kentucky Ex Rel. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Armour v. City of IndianapolisSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- St. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.