Taxes, Pac. Guano, Etc., Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Simon v. County of Los Angeles

    141 Cal.App.2d 74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)   Cited 8 times
    In Simon, nails imported from Europe in kegs and sacks were exempt from local taxation until the kegs and sacks, being the original package, were opened.

    r, for the packages involved were those customarily used in Europe for shipment throughout the world; there was no attempt to avoid the effect of any statute or decision and was no departure from conduct of normal foreign trade. [1] Mere size of the container is not the criterion of an original package, — as witness these cases in which the original package contention was upheld: Imperial Dev. Co. v. City of Calexico, 47 Cal.App. 666, 668, 670 [ 191 P. 50] (separate bales of cotton); Gus Leisy Co. v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 124 [10 S.Ct. 681, 34 L.Ed. 128, 138] (kegs and cases of beer); Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U.S. 1, 24 [18 S.Ct. 757, 43 L.Ed. 49, 58] (10-pound package of oleomargarine); United States v. Sixty-Five Casks Liquid Extract, 170 F. 449, 454 (cask holding 50 gallons of liquid extract); Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. Alabama, 288 U.S. 218, 225 [53 S.Ct. 373, 77 L.Ed. 710, 714] (nitrate in bags containing 100 pounds each); Re Taxes, Pacific Guano etc. Co., 32 Haw. 431, 441 (nitrate of soda in bags); Southern Pac. Co. v. City of Calexico, 288 F. 634 (bale of cotton). This court quoted with approval in the Stanton case, supra, at page 192, the following language of Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U.S. 343 [21 S.Ct. 132, 45 L.Ed. 224]: "No doubt the fact that cigarettes are actually imported in a certain package is strong evidence that they are original packages within the meaning of the law; but this presumption attaches only when the importation is made in the usual manner prevalent among honest dealers, and in a bona fide package of a particular size."

  2. Export Leaf Tobacco Co. v. County of L. A.

    89 Cal.App.2d 909 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)   Cited 10 times

    It was held that the halt in California was solely for a purpose incidental to the transportation and that the oil while halted was not subject to tax by Contra Costa County. (See, also, Western Oil Refining Co. v. Lipscomb, 244 U.S. 346 [37 S.Ct. 623, 61 L.Ed. 1181]; United States v. Erie R. Co., 280 U.S. 98 [50 S.Ct. 51, 74 L.Ed. 187]; Johnson v. County of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.App.2d 579 [ 88 P.2d 725]; Imperial Development Co. v. Calexico, 47 Cal.App. 666 [ 191 P. 50]; W.J. Lake Co., Inc. v. King County, 3 Wn.2d 500 [ 101 P.2d 357], cert. den. 311 U.S. 715 [61 S.Ct. 396, 85 L.Ed. 465]; Galveston v. Mexican Petroleum Corp., 15 F.2d 208; Southern Pac. Co. v. Calexico, 288 F. 634; In re Taxes, Pacific Guano Fertilizer Co., 32 Haw. 431; State v. Hammermill Paper Co., 149 Minn. 414 [184 N.W. 182]; Connecticut River Lumber Co. v. Columbia, 62 N.H. 286; Borough of Edgewater v. Department of Tax. F., 135 N.J.L. 42 [ 50 A.2d 103]; State v. Empire Oil Refining Co., 171 Okla. 138 [ 42 P.2d 127]; Clark v. Atlantic Pipe Line Co. (Tex.Civ.App.), 134 S.W.2d 322; West VirginiaPipe Line Co. v. State, 95 W. Va. 285 [ 120 S.E. 759]; anno. 60 A.L.R. 1465; 155 A.L.R. 936.) The cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the imposition of a property tax were cases in which: there was a halt to process the goods ( Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U.S. 504 [33 S.Ct. 299, 57 L.Ed. 615]); the interruption was to hold the goods for sale ( Minnesota v. Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 [54 S.Ct. 34, 78 L.Ed. 131]); the interruption was not in necessary delay or accommodation to the means of transportation ( General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U.S. 311 [28 S.Ct. 475, 52 L.Ed. 754]); the interruption was to separate the goods for distribution to

  3. E.J. Stanton Sons v. County of L.A

    78 Cal.App.2d 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)   Cited 21 times
    In E. J. Stanton & Sons v. County of Los Angeles (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 181, 177 P.2d 804, certiorari denied, 332 U.S. 766, 68 S.Ct. 75, 92 L.Ed. 352, pieces of lumber were shipped from abroad without being packaged individually or as a group.

    It bears no resemblance to remnants of depleted cargoes of lumber sorted, classified and stored for sale, and is otherwise not authority for exempting respondent's depleted shipments from a local tax. Neither does it appear that the cases of Re Taxes, Pacific Guano Fertilizer Co., 32 Haw. 431; Low v. Austin, 13 Dall. (U.S.) 29 [20 L.Ed. 517], and Southern Pacific Co. v. City of Calexico, 288 F. 634, shed any light upon the issue presented by the instant action. In each of those cases it is made clearly to appear that the imported merchandise was taxed after United States customs duties had been paid and while the merchandise lay in the warehouse of the importer, either in the same form in which it had been discharged by the carrier at the port or in the original packages in which it had been wrapped or crated by the shipper at the point of origin.