U.S. Supreme Court
Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 145 U.S. 1 (1892)
Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing District
Argued March 18, 21, 1892
Decided April 11, 1892
145 U.S. 1
F. and C. & Co. were commercial agents or brokers, having an office in Shelby County, Tennessee, where they carried on that business. In 1887, they took out licenses for their said business under the provisions of the statute of Tennessee of April 4, 1881, Sess.Laws 1881, c. 96, § 9, 111, 113, imposing a tax upon factors, brokers, buyers or sellers on commission, or otherwise, doing business within the state, or, if no capital be so invested, then upon the gross yearly commissions, charges or compensation for said business. During the year for which they took out licenses, all the sales negotiated by F. were made on behalf of principals residing in other states, and the goods so sold were, at the times of the sales, in other states, to be shipped to Tennessee as sales should be effected. During the same time, a large part of the commissions of C. & Co. were derived from similar sales. They had no capital invested in their business. At the expiration of the year, they applied for a renewal of their license. As they had made no return of sales, and no payment of percentage on their commission, the application was denied. They filed a bill to restrain the collection of the percentage tax for the past year, and also to restrain any interference with their current business, claiming that the tax was a tax on interstate commerce. Held
(1) that if the tax could be said to affect interstate commerce in any way, it did so incidentally, and so remotely as not to amount to a regulation of such commerce; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(2) That under the circumstances, the complainants could not resort to the court simply on the ground that the authorities had refused to issue a new license without the payment of the stipulated tax.
Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489, examined and distinguished from this case.
This case having been submitted on briefs, the submission was set aside by the court and an oral argument ordered. When the case was reached neither party appeared by counsel, but an offer was again made to submit on the briefs. The court thereupon ordered the case dismissed for want of prosecution in the manner directed by its previous order, but subsequently this dismissal was set aside on motion, and argument was heard.
This case was submitted January 4, 1889, under the 20th rule. On the 4th of February, 1889, the submission was set aside, and the case was restored to the docket, to stand for oral argument. On the 6th of November, 1891, it was assigned for argument. When reached on the 24th of that month, an offer was again made to submit on the briefs. The Court thereupon ordered the case dismissed for failure to prosecute it in the manner directed by the court. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This was a bill filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, by C. L. Ficklen and Cooper & Company against the taxing district of Shelby county and Andrew J. Harris, County Trustee.
The bill alleged that complainants were
"commercial agents or merchandise brokers, located within the taxing district of Shelby County, where their respective firms rent a room for the purpose of keeping and at times exhibiting their samples and carrying on their correspondence with their respective principals. That they use no capital in their business. That they handle or deal in no merchandise, and are neither buyers nor sellers; they only engage in negotiating sales for their respective principals. They do precisely the same business that commercial drummers do, the only difference being that they are stationary, while the commercial drummers are transitory and go from place to place and secure a temporary room at each town or city in which to exhibit their samples. That each solicits orders for the sales of the merchandise of their respective principals, and forwards the same to them, when such orders are filled by shipping the goods direct to the purchasers thereof in the County of Shelby."
It was then averred that all of the sales negotiated by complainant Ficklen were exclusively for nonresident firms, who resided and carried on business in other states than Tennessee, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
and all the merchandise so sold was in other states than Tennessee, where the sales were made, and was shipped into Tennessee, when the orders were forwarded and filled.
That at least nine-tenths of the sales negotiated and effected by complainants Cooper & Co., and at least nine-tenths of their gross commissions, were derived from merchandise of nonresident firms or persons, and which merchandise was shipped into Tennessee from other states after the sales were effected.
That section 9, chapter 96, of the Act of 1881 of Tennessee (Sess.Laws of 1881, pp. 111, 113), made subsection 17 of section 22 of the Taxing District Acts (Taxing District Digest 50), provides:
"Every person or firm dealing in cotton, or any other article whatever, whether as factor, broker, buyer, or seller on commission or otherwise, ($50) fifty dollars per annum, and, in addition, every such person or firm shall be taxed ad valorem (10 cts.) ten cents on everyone hundred dollars of amount of capital invested or used in such business, provided, however, that if such person or firm carry on the cotton or other business in connection with the grocery or any other business, the capital invested in both shall only be taxed once; but such person or firm must pay the privilege tax for both occupations, and provided further that if the persons taxed in this subsection have no capital invested, they shall pay 2 1/2 percent on their gross yearly commissions, charges, or compensations for said business, and at the time of taking out their said license they shall give bond to return said gross commissions, charges, or compensation to the trustee at the end of the year, and at the end of the year they shall make return to said trustee accordingly, and pay to him the said 2 1/2 percent."
Complainants charged that, as they were neither dealers, buyers, nor sellers, but only engaged in negotiating sales for buyers, they were not embraced within the meaning of said section, and further stated that they had each heretofore paid the privilege tax and the income tax, except for the year 1887, and had tendered the privilege tax of $50 and costs of issuing license for the year 1888, to the trustee, who refused to accept chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
the same unless complainants would also pay the income tax for the year 1887.
From the bill and exhibits attached, it appeared that complainants, in January, 1887, each paid the sum of $50 for the use of the taxing district, and executed b