Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Hammond Packing Co. v. Montana
Hammond Packing Co. v. Mont., 233 U.S. 331 (1914)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1914-04-13
- Topic
- general
Me. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action to recover a license-tax of one cent per pound sold for carrying on the business of selling oleomargarine. The. answer, with some allegations not now material, admitted the facts and set up that § 4064 of the Political Code of Montana as amended by § 2763, Revised Codes, by which the tax was imposed, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. That is the only question raised here, so that other incidental or preliminary matters need not be mentioned.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hammond Packing Co. v. Montana. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 26 opinions
Headnotes
- Constitutional Law — Equal Protection So long as it does not interfere with interstate commerce, a State may restrict the manufacture of oleomargarine in a way that does not hamper the manufacture of butter; such a classification is reasonable and does not offend the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 233 U.S. at 333
- Constitutional Law — Equal Protection A State may forbid the manufacture of oleomargarine altogether without violating the Due Process or Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. 233 U.S. at 333 (citing Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678)
- Constitutional Law — State Taxing and Police Powers A State may express and carry out its policy in restricting and forbidding the manufacture of articles either through police legislation or through revenue legislation. 233 U.S. at 333 (citing Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U.S. 59)
- Constitutional Law — Equal Protection A State does not violate the Constitution of the United States by placing oleomargarine in a class by itself for purposes of a license tax and discriminating between it and butter, even where the tax is imposed for revenue. 233 U.S. at 337
HAMMOND PACKING CO.v. MONTANA,233 U.S. 331(1914)
34 S.Ct. 596
HAMMOND PACKING COMPANYv. STATE OF MONTANA.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA.
No. 278.
Submitted March 11, 1914.
Decided April 13, 1914.
THE facts, which involve the constitutionality under the due
process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
of a statute of Montana imposing a license tax on the carrying on
of the business of selling oleomargarine, are stated in the
opinion.
The statute providing for a license tax of one cent per pound on sales of oleomargarine, butterine and imitation cheese denies to plaintiff due process of law and the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court of the State decided that the tax is imposed for the purpose of revenue in the exercise of thePage 332taxing power and that the imposition of such tax is authorized by the constitution of the State.
The oleomargarine sold, after having been received, stored and held for sale in Silver Bow County, was subject to the taxing power of the State.Am. Steel Wire Co. v.Speed,192 U.S. 500;Kehrerv.Stewart,197 U.S. 60;McCrayv.UnitedStates,195 U.S. 53.
The legislative assembly of Montana is authorized to classify for the purpose of taxation and may lawfully impose a tax upon one class of property or one occupation to the exclusion of other property and other occupations.Southwestern Oil Co. v.Texas,217 U.S. 114.
The only inquiry is whether the placing of oleomargarine, butterine and imitation of cheese in a separate class for the purpose of taxation is a legitimate exercise of the taxing power and whether such a classification is not arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, and in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Oleomargarine is a wholesome article of food, a recognized article of commerce, and its manufacture and sale cannot be prohibited by a State.Schollenbergerv.Pennsylvania,171 U.S. 1;Collinsv.New Hampshire,171 U.S. 30.
While the State can, in the exercise of the police power, provide reasonable regulations with reference to the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in order to prevent deception and fraud and in the interest of the health of the people of the State,Capital City Dairy Co. v.Ohio,183 U.S. 238, it may not abuse the taxing power. SeeSpencerv.Merchant,125 U.S. 345; Cooley on Taxation (3d ed.), p. 1133.
No classification for the purpose of taxation is reasonable or justifiable, unless all articles used for the same purpose, and which are sold in competition, are placed in the same class. Such a classification as is made by this statutePage 333under consideration does violence to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Connollyv.Union Sewer PipeCo.,184 U.S. 540;Gulf, Col. c. R.R. v.Ellis,165 U.S. 150.McCrayv.United States,195 U.S. 27, distinguished.Mr. D.M. Kelly, Attorney General of the State of Montana, andMr. J.H. Alvord, for defendant in error.
The argument for the plaintiff in error is that, the tax being pronounced or assumed by the state courts to be a tax for revenue, it is unjustifiable to put oleomargarine in a class by itself and to discriminate, for instance, between it and butter. But we see no obstacle to doing so in the Constitution of the United States. Apart from interference with commerce among the States, a State may restrict the manufacture of oleomargarine in a way in which it does not hamper that of butter.Capital CityDairy Co. v.Ohio,183 U.S. 238,245,246. It even may forbid the manufacture altogether.Powellv.Pennsylvania,127 U.S. 678. It may express and carry out itsPage 334policy as well in a revenue as in a police law.Quong Wingv.Kirdendall,223 U.S. 59,62. The case really has been disposed of by previous decisions of this court.McCrayv.UnitedStates,195 U.S. 27,62,63.Judgment affirmed.