CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 240 U. S. 319 (1916)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 240 U. S. 319 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Pennsylvania, 240 U.S. 319 (1916)

Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland v. Pennsylvania

No. 114

Argued January 6, 1916

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 319

Syllabus

A state may not directly and materially hinder the exercise of the constitutional powers of the United States by demanding, in opposition to the will of Congress, that a federal instrumentality pay a tax for performing its functions.

Mere contracts, however, between it and the United States do not render a private corporation an essential governmental agency and confer freedom from state control.

The Act of August 13, 1894, c. 282, 28 Stat. 279, allowing certain corporations to be accepted as surety does not endow them with power, or create them instrumentalities of the United States, and relieve them from compliance with the laws of, or payment of the lawful taxes in, the states in which they transact their business.

The statute of Pennsylvania of June 28, 1895, imposing taxes on premiums collected by certain classes of insurance companies is not, as applied to premiums on bonds of United States government officials given by surety companies complying with the Act of 1894, unconstitutional as an interference with the powers of the federal government by taxing an instrumentality thereof.

244 Pa.St. 67 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the right of a state to tax a foreign corporation doing business within the state on premiums received for bonds of surety required of its officers and others by the United States, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 240 U. S. 320





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED