Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. In this suit against Shannon, Secretary of State for Texas, for the recovery of taxes paid under protest, the plaintiff, Gaar, Scott & Company, alleged that it is a corporation chartered by the laws of Indiana, in which State it has its principal place of business and where it manufactures machinery; that in 1901 it paid thé amount of franchise tax required of foreign…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. In this suit against Shannon, Secretary of State for Texas, for the recovery of taxes paid under protest, the plaintiff, Gaar, Scott & Company, alleged that it is a corporation chartered by the laws of Indiana, in which State it has its principal place of business and where it manufactures machinery; that in 1901 it paid thé amount of franchise tax required of foreign corporations,, arid obtained from the State of Texas a permit to do business for ten years. This permit, it alleges, was a…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Lamar
On writ of error to a judgment, sustaining defendant’s demurrer'to the complaint for the recovery of taxes paid under protest, the Court of Appeals of Texas considered all the assignments of error. It held that the permit of 1901, to do business for ten years, was not a contract and that therefore the State during that period might demand an increased or additional franchise tax. It ruled that foreign corporations might be altogether excluded, or required to pay a discriminatory tax as the condition of the right to do business in Texas. It further held that even if there had been merit in.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. StranahanSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Southern Railway Co. v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Robertson v. Frank Brothers Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
- L. Miller & Co. v. GoodmanTexas Supreme Court · 1897
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business RegulationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Ward v. Board of Commr's of Love Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Altvater v. FreemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Wallace v. HinesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Austin Nat. Bank v. SheppardTexas Commission of Appeals · 1934
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.