Browning v. City of Waycross
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the commerce clause of the Federal ConstitutioU of a municipal occupation tax on hghtning rod agents and dealers, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice White
The plaintiff in error was charged in a municipal court with violating an ordinance which imposed an annual occupation tax of $25 upon “lightning rod agents or dealers engaged in putting up or erecting -lightning rods within the corporate limits” of the City of Waycross. Although admitting that he had carried on the business he pleaded not guilty and defended upon the ground that he had done so as the agent of a St. Louis corporation on whose behalf he had solicited orders for the sale of lightning rods; had received the rods when-shipped on such orders from St. Louis and had erected them for…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Caldwell v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Rearick v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Dozier v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Browning v. City of WaycrossCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
3Cited by177 opinions
- Western Live Stock v. Bureau of RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. LordSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Superior Oil Co. v. Mississippi Ex Rel. KnoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Packer Corp. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
172 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.