Graniteville Mfg. Co. v. Query

14 Citing cases

  1. Santee River Cypress Co. v. Query et al

    168 S.C. 112 (S.C. 1932)   Cited 15 times
    In SanteeRiver Cypress Co. v. Query et al., 168 S.C. 112, 167 S.E., 22, the Court said: `It is not only within the power of a court of equity, but the duty rests upon it, to enjoin the collection of an illegal tax in those cases where no adequate legal remedy is provided for the aggrieved taxpayer.

    Action by the Santee River Cypress Lumber Company against W.G. Query and others, as members of the South Carolina Tax Commission. From an adverse order, plaintiff appeals. Mr. M.W. Seabrook, for appellant, cites: Taxpayer contestingdocumentary stamp tax cannot pay under protest: 44F.2d 64; 283 U.S. 376; 51 S.Ct., 515; 75 L.Ed., 1126; 144 S.C. 234; 142 S.E., 509; 15 C.J., 928; 144 S.C. 250; 78 S.C. 211; 58 S.E., 811. Messrs. J.M. Daniel, Attorney General, and J. Fraser Lyon,Assistant Attorney General, for respondent, cite: WhereState Court construes statute Federal Courts are bound tofollow construction: 248 U.S. 465; 39 S.Ct., 160; 63 L.Ed., 362; 245 U.S. 345; 3 S.Ct., 122; 62 L.Ed., 337; 248 U.S. 32; 63 L.Ed., 108; 248 U.S. 35; 63 L.Ed., 109.

  2. Textron, Inc. v. Livingston

    137 S.E.2d 267 (S.C. 1964)   Cited 2 times
    In Textron, Daniel bought a lot, erected a building thereon and then sold the lot and building to Textron or its nominee for a stated consideration in the deed of One Million, Five Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand, One Hundred Ninety-Nine and 25/100 ($1,586,199.

    Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion Johnstone, of Greenville, for Appellant, cite: As to Appellant notbeing liable for the documentary stamps required by theholding of the South Carolina Tax Commission: 103 F. 98; 8 F. Supp. 874; 53 F. Supp. 796; 137 F.2d 574. Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General, and JamesM. Windham, Assistant Attorney General, of Columbia, for Respondents, cite: As to ruling of South Carolina TaxCommission, requiring the affixing of documentary stampsto the conveyance in question, being proper: 283 U.S. 376, 51 S.Ct., 515, 75 L.Ed. 1126; 217 S.C. 407, 60 S.E.2d 851; 189 S.C. 386, 1 S.E.2d 153; (S.C.) 82 S.E.2d 465; 26 Am. Jur. 315; 217 S.C. 354, 60 S.E.2d 682. As to the word "Sell" meaning to transfer propertyfor a consideration; to give up for a consideration; toconvey: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. June 29, 1964.

  3. S.C. Electric Gas Co. v. Pinckney et al

    217 S.C. 407 (S.C. 1950)   Cited 9 times

    Wingate, Assistant Attorney General, of Columbia, forAppellants, cite: As to the tax, the subject of instant action,being a tax upon the creation, wholly or partly within theState, of evidence of debt: 44 F.2d 64, 51 S.Ct. 515, 283 U.S. 376. Mr. Arthur M. Williams, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent, cites: As to the bonds issued by plaintiff not being subjectto the South Carolina Documentary Tax: 281 U.S. 587, 50 S.Ct. 436, 74 L.Ed. 1056; 280 U.S. 83, 50 S. Ct. 59, 74 L.Ed. 180, 67 A.L.R. 386; 44 S.E.2d 64; 283 U.S. 376, 75 L.Ed. 1126. As to a state having nopower to tax property which has no legal situs within itsborders: 281 U.S. 587, 50 S.Ct. 436, 74 L.Ed. 1056; 277 U.S. 1, 48 S.Ct. 410, 72 L.Ed. 749; 280 U.S. 204, 50 S.Ct. 98, 74 L.Ed. 370; 280 U.S. 83, 50 S.Ct. 59, 74 L.Ed. 180, 67 A.L.R. 386.

  4. Union Bleachery v. S.C. Tax Comm

    182 S.C. 314 (S.C. 1937)   Cited 2 times
    In Union Bleachery v.South Carolina Tax Commission, supra, the plaintiff sought to recover the amount paid under protest for documentary stamps.

    Action by the Union Bleachery against the South Carolina Tax Commission. From an order granting a motion to dismiss the action, plaintiff appeals. Mr. W.G. Sirrine, for appellant, cites: Right of actionto recover taxes: 283 U.S. 376; 75 L.Ed., 1126; 180 S.C. 81; 166 S.C. 117; 164 S.E., 588; 146 S.C. 225; 143 S.E., 796; 139 S.C. 107; 137 S.E., 211; 233 P. 422; 3 McCord, 306. Construction of statute: 177 S.C. 286; 181 S.E., 30; 25 R.C.L., 970; 102 U.S. 625; 26 L.Ed., 122; 196 U.S. 207; 49 L.Ed., 449; 154 S.C. 129; 151 S.E., 279; 139 S.C. 107; 132 S.C. 241; 128 S.E., 172; 68 S.C. 339; 75 S.C. 62; 32 S.C. 123; 149 S.C. 52; 146 S.E., 686; 25 R.C.L. 1000; 84 S.C. 552; 66 S.E. 1049; 63 S.C. 169; 165 U.S. 155; 118 S.C. 498; 110 S.E., 808; 166 S.C. 117; 164 S.E., 588; 166 S.C. 99; 163 S.E., 434; 42 S.C. 222; 20 S.E., 221; 41 S.C. 220; 19 S.E., 458; 13 S.C. 554. Doctrine of stare decisis: 174 S.C. 63; 176 S.E., 876; 7 R.C.L., 1000; 15 C.J. 916; 79 S.C. 9; 60 S.E., 19; 4 S.C. 61; 2 S.C. 56; 42 S.C. 222; 20 S.E., 221; 41 S.C. 220; 39 S.C. 207; 17 S.E., 752; 13 S.C. 46; 33 S.C. 442; 12 S.E., 5; 7 S.C. 153. Messrs. John M. Daniel, Attorney General, and Claude K.Wingate, for respondents, cite: Tax should be paid underprotest an

  5. Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland

    347 U.S. 340 (1954)   Cited 278 times
    Holding that a de facto tax on commercial sales occurring with out-of-state businesses, with delivery of goods out of state, was unconstitutional and noting that "[w]here there is jurisdiction neither as to person nor property, the imposition of a tax would be ultra vires and void"

    New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152, 158-159. See Department of Treasury v. Wood Preserving Corp., 313 U.S. 62; McLeod v. J. E. Dilworth Co., 322 U.S. 327. Cf. Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U.S. 506; Graniteville Mfg. Co. v. Query, 283 U.S. 376 (creation of promissory notes). See also foot note 19.

  6. Federal Trade Commission v. Smith

    1 F. Supp. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1932)   Cited 2 times

    Without analyzing the services rendered by respondent within the foregoing classifications, I shall content myself by concluding that they have to do with activities which, under authoritative decisions, are not recognized as constituting interstate commerce. See Graniteville Manufacturing Company v. Query, 283 U.S. 376, 51 S. Ct. 515, 75 L. Ed. 1126; Hemphill v. Orloff, 277 U.S. 537, 48 S. Ct. 577, 72 L. Ed. 978; Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593, 46 S. Ct. 367, 70 L. Ed. 750, 45 A.L.R. 1370; Blumenstock Brothers Adv. Agency v. Curtis Publishing Co., 252 U.S. 436, 40 S. Ct. 385, 64 L. Ed. 649; Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539, 37 S. Ct. 217, 61 L. Ed. 480, L.R.A. 1917F, 514, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 643; United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. Kentucky, 231 U.S. 394, 34 S. Ct. 122, 58 L. Ed. 283; New York Life Insurance Co. v. Deer Lodge County, 231 U.S. 495, 34 S. Ct. 167, 58 L. Ed. 332; Engel v. O'Malley, 219 U.S. 128, 31 S. Ct. 190, 55 L. Ed. 128, and Federal Base Ball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S. Ct. 465, 66 L. Ed. 898, 26 A.L.R. 357. When, however, the services performed by respondent for its associated and affiliated companies, in certain other capacities are scrutinized, the issue before the court may not be disposed of so summarily.

  7. Investors Premium Corp. v. S.C. Tax Comm

    193 S.E.2d 642 (S.C. 1973)   Cited 9 times
    Setting forth the Court's function in discerning legislative intent to interpret words in a statute in a way that both gives meaning to the use of the word and is logical

    Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Joe L. Allen, Jr., and G. Lewis Argoe, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., of Columbia, for Appellants, cite: As to Sections 65-681 and 65-690 ofthe South Carolina Code of Laws requiring Respondent topay documentary stamp taxes upon the powers of attorneytaken in connection with the financing of insurance premiums: Act No. 206 of the 1967 Acts of South Carolina; South Carolina Code of Laws for 1962, as amended, Sections 37-1301 through 37-1314; 217 S.C. 407, 60 S.E.2d 851; 44 F.2d 64; 244 S.C. 380, 137 S.E.2d 267; 57 F.2d 811; 17 Wall. 486, 21 L.Ed. 728; 217 S.C. 354, 60 S.E.2d 682; 26 U.S.C. § 3480; 26 U.S.C. § 4384; 110 F. Supp. 945; 231 S.C. 587 cert. denied, 78 S.Ct. 342, 355 U.S. 913, 2 L.Ed. 274; 225 S.C. 341, 82 S.E.2d 465; 283 U.S. 376, 51 S.Ct. 515, 75 L.Ed. 1126; 44 F.2d 64; 217 S.C. 407, 60 S.E.2d 851; 244 S.C. 380, 137 S.E.2d 267; 236 S.C. 2, 112 S.E.2d 716, rev. in 365 U.S. 517, 81 S.Ct. 719, 5 L.Ed.2d 749. Harry M. Lightsey, Jr., Esq., of Columbia, for Respondent, cites: As to a power of attorney documentary stamptax not being properly due on the instrument involved inthis case: Article 2, Chapter 11, Title 65, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962; 44 F.2d 64; 217 S.C. 407, 60 S.E.2d 851, 853; 17 Wall 496, 21 L.Ed. 728; 244 S.C. 380, 137 S.E.2d 267; 84 C.J.S. Taxation, Section 41; 229 N.C. 599, 51 S.E.2d 1; Sec. 37-1312 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, as amended. As to a power of attorney documentary stamp tax if dueon the instrument not being chargeable to the Respondent: 217 S.C. 407, 60 S.E.2d 851; 44 F.2d 64; 233 S.C. 43, 103 S.E.2d 424; Sec. 65-1407, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962.

  8. Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative v. Green

    132 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1961)   Cited 15 times

    To that extent it might be described as a tax on the document. However, my authority for the view that the tax is by nature an excise tax levied as an impost for the privilege of performing an act within the taxing forum, is the view of Chief Justice Hughes in Graniteville Mfg. Co. v. Query, 283 U.S. 376, 51 S.Ct. 515, 516, 75 L.Ed. 1126. The tax there involved was the federal documentary stamp tax on promissory notes. In his opinion Chief Justice Hughes stated, "The tax as thus sustained is an excise tax, of a familiar sort, levied with respect to the creation of instruments within the state.

  9. Laurens Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. S.C. Tax Comm

    236 S.C. 2 (S.C. 1960)   Cited 4 times

    The complaint in this action alleges that the promissory notes of the appellant to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Greensboro, North Carolina, were executed at Laurens, South Carolina, the place of business of the appellant. It was held in the case of Graniteville Mfg. Co. v. Query, D.C., 44 F.2d 64, affirmed on appeal to the United States Supreme Court, 283 U.S. 376, 51 S.Ct. 515, 75 L.Ed. 1126, that South Carolina may validly impose a stamp tax upon promissory notes executed within the State though payable to banks at their places of business outside the State. Therefore, it follows that unless there is an appropriate exemption applying to the notes executed by the appellant, they should bear South Carolina documentary stamps as is fixed and required by Section 65-688 of the 1952 Code of Laws of South Carolina.

  10. State v. Gay

    90 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1956)   Cited 4 times
    In State v. Gay, 90 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1956), the Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida documentary stamp tax `is more nearly of the nature of a transaction tax that is imposed upon the particularly described transactions when they occur within the limits of this state.

    Although this type of tax is now rather commonplace, there are strangely few decisions which may be used as a guide to our conclusion. We are of the view, however, that the opinion of a three-Judge Federal Court in Graniteville Mfg. Co. v. Query, D.C., 44 F.2d 64, and the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Graniteville Mfg. Co. v. Query, 283 U.S. 376, 51 S.Ct. 515, 516, 75 L.Ed. 1126, are strongly analogous and sufficiently so that we adopt them as a guide to our decision in the case at bar. The nature of the type of tax involved was adequately described by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in the United States Supreme Court decision in the Graniteville Mfg. case when he stated: