Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Pennsylvania
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. The facts, which involve the right of a State to tax a foreign corporation doing business within the State on premiums ^received for . bonds of surety required of its officers and others by the United States, ar,e stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McReynolds
We are asked to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pénnsylvania' which' denied plaintiff in error’s claim that in becoming surety upon bonds required by the United States it acted as a Federal .instrumentality and was not subject to taxation on the. premiums received. 244 Pa, St. 67.
Incorporated under the laws of Maryland, the Fidelity & Deposit Company is empowered by its charter to act as surety. It was.duly licensed to transact business in Pennsylvania In pursuance of the Act of Congress referred to below, the Attorney General grantéd it authority to enter into obligations required…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- National Bank v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Van Allen v. AssessorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. HarrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Farmers and Mechanics Sav. Bank of Minneapolis v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Baltimore Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- James v. Dravo Contracting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Shaw v. Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Waterbury Savings Bank v. DanaherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.