Standard Oil Co. v. City of Spartanburg
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action by Standard Oil Co. against city of Spartanburg. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed. cite: Ordinance is discriminative in its classification: 21 Ency., 784, 80S, 804. There is no valid reason for the classification: 59 S. C., 396. As to estoppel: 42 S. C., 351; 184 U. S., 450; 94 U. S-, 267. ' cite: As to the classification: 59 S. C., 396. As to estoppel of plaintiff: Big. on Estp., 652; 51 Ala., 507; 29 Mich., 289; 77' 111., 296; 41 S. C., 80; 19 S. C.,…
Read the full summary
Action by Standard Oil Co. against city of Spartanburg. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed. cite: Ordinance is discriminative in its classification: 21 Ency., 784, 80S, 804. There is no valid reason for the classification: 59 S. C., 396. As to estoppel: 42 S. C., 351; 184 U. S., 450; 94 U. S-, 267. ' cite: As to the classification: 59 S. C., 396. As to estoppel of plaintiff: Big. on Estp., 652; 51 Ala., 507; 29 Mich., 289; 77' 111., 296; 41 S. C., 80; 19 S. C., 208; 42 S. C., 348; 57 S. C., 108.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
Statement of facts. — This is an action brought to recover the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars paid by the plaintiff under protest as a license tax for the business of selling oil in the city of Spartanburg. The defendant collected said sum under the following clause of an ordinance to raise supplies, ratified the 11th day of November, 1902: “Kerosene: Any merchant or merchan dise broker, dealer in oils, or agents for oil companies, or other persons receiving illuminating or lubricating oils either in carloads or less than…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Bell's Gap Railroad v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- County of Mobile v. KimballSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State AuditorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Briggs v. Greenville CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- Fleischman, Morris & Co. v. Southern Ry.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Gasque, Inc. v. NatesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
- City of Laurens v. AndersonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1906
- South Carolina Power Co. v. South Carolina Tax CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1931
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.