American Smelting & Refining Co. v. People ex rel. Lindsley
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver: lion. Samuel L. Carpenter, Judge. This is a direct proceeding in the nature of quo tcarranto against the respondent company, prosecuted by the people at the instance of the district attorney and the -attorney general of the state and having for its object the forfeiture of respondent’s corporate franchises for its failure to pay the annual state corporation license tax which the briefs designate “a flat tax.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver: lion. Samuel L. Carpenter, Judge. This is a direct proceeding in the nature of quo tcarranto against the respondent company, prosecuted by the people at the instance of the district attorney and the -attorney general of the state and having for its object the forfeiture of respondent’s corporate franchises for its failure to pay the annual state corporation license tax which the briefs designate “a flat tax.” The findings were against respondent and the decree declared forfeited its franchises and forbade it longer to do…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Campbell
1. It will materially lessen our labors and shorten the opinion first to determine the nature of the burden imposed. If we find that it is a business or excise tax, that conclusion will answer some of the most serious objections urged. If it is a direct tax on property, the attorney general is disposed to concede that it would be repugnant to several clauses of our own constitution.
The language of section 65 is that every foreign corporation shall pay annually "a state license tax as follows: Four cents upon each one thousand dollars of its capital stock: Provided, that in cases of foreign…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Paul v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Taylor v. SecorSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Minot v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State AuditorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Kaiser Land and Fruit Co. v. CurryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Van FleetSupreme Court of Colorado · 1910
- California Company v. StateSupreme Court of Colorado · 1959
- Post v. City of Grand JunctionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1948
- Jackson v. City of Glenwood SpringsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1950
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.