Statement Opposing Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss or Affirm — Standard Oil Co. v. Peck

5 . - A 5 ae _ : . ~ ' o% ‘ ‘4 : x

- = 2+ 5 Office-Syprome Couit, U. $. a i

.» : :

4 sop °

? 6 “ea se D .

* . ¢ ‘ * o— 3 - ° J ves e

be agp oe oe ees, .

y . ° - oe Oc e > .

ry & Poke Cin :

, . s s . > cnt ee e

° ¥ 2 ° mary, a Bey \

‘, bid

‘SUPREME. COURT OF THE UNITE sins ey

| _ OOTOBER Tham, 1951 j SRE

a. ‘. ; a ies pee ¥ Bal AS tg

e Pe Ne ae ae Sie ae eee

‘HE STAN DARD OIL comPany, an Onto 0 Consonsgass, > mm Xe

3 Appellant Ss sate

v8. < ¢ . z peiaee

Se : at ty “3 4 op

g

JOHN W.PECK, ad Commissionzin or Onto ap JOHN J.

-CARNEY, Avprror OF Covandoa County, Onto fo te

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO. |

F * be ve .° ; é i We a ey a 4 :

Fal

ee STATEMENT OPPOsING TURISBIOTION 1 AND’

«°°... MOTION To DISMISS’ ‘OR biccoiall re rk

283 fe es "oe Re is ae ae ae

ee ey ee

| Sosctdt Couette the : si Se ! a ee

‘ Attorney General.of Ohio; =, *-.

at eee “C, Wituiam O’Nen1, ae eras Tare ths

ode 8 oy Aitontey General of. Ohio; te ee sa * c

i BOR 8 Roseer H. ‘Leaou, ma, : es

ee ‘Assistant Attorney, General of Ohio; .°° Hs

Rea re ont Cas Frank T.. Ouriyy, Sr Sr ae

. Ae Prosecuting ‘tttorney of Cugahoga Pasir eran teat Wee fo

_ County, Ohio; |: De Sie Pats atte ia eee

ea. -.. Sauon Danaceav, 3 eae re

: ie aes First Assistant Prosecuting ee *

Attorney. of Cusjahoga County, Ohio, © .. ~~

on me MD were Counsel for Appellees. Bg ee

oars

f.: | .

Psa / ¢ ; & A -

: 1 :

. . ; :? . v . ~

: my > at

Wa . bs s ’ ae . .

eo . 5 .

: » 2» “a -

aM, Le ‘ P fae cs ot

sites a3 t : .

ee a

; aad é

® |

° ~s ° Paes : :

°. ae : ° :

PL.

», REN

- °

‘Statgment a opposing .

miss or affirm |...’

ren cers ‘Statement of isst

2 es oath ee _No substantial f

ie a ee the we appesl,

OS eh ee @ eoue eee Ts

? . Ayer &Lord Tie Co.

eee! Biase. _ , 202%,8. 409, 50 L.

eae ae | ee City of St. Louis v.

: 19 |, 423,.20-L. ed. 192 .

- Hays v. The Pacific M

es ® oe0 Wea 15 L, ed. 254 |

ws bee a | : ‘North@est. Airlines, I

: ee ate ~ 88 L. ed, 1283 .

a Ott. v.' Mississi ppi Ve

“ U.S. 169 poet i ed.

Southern Pacific Co:

222 U.S. 63, 56 Le «

4

Constitution of the U

a — .

c «€ ;

¥ i . :

“sy +a ae ‘ ,

e ' F

: SR :

°+ - he

e .

- ee

ig ‘

| ipa

+ ,

~ \

.6 ; 9

; e: . >

. » : +, .

¢ : a a6 s

2 > e

eo -

? ‘ 2 .

rie $ 2

° *. ‘2 «

eB BE oe »

9 Ni pp se ote a

: Pee e

. 2 ; *

> he BEL PIS ¢ ;

. , =

° -

ee j '

° ¢

* a e ]

; - ‘ Po °°?

Con appeal * 2 Lec 5 oe

ederal questions presented ad aye

“ .

s =")

0

7 a

@.

~~

eg 5 eres EO Se Ware ee eer arg a ty

df 4 . . . ag . .

VyrHoRiTiEs CrrED basse Moe GEE

nited States, 14th Amendment . 2.

Se -, RE

Seyas tan NC a oe oy PR SS

- 9

& rd 2 _e

. ‘« .

=. <

‘ .

. é . ge,

En re

£%} :

* i gy

a ; :

Ve

“~&

%

@ %* U9

‘IN THE SUPREME ‘count OF onto

3

3.

| No. 32060 3 A

THE STANDARD OIL ‘COMPANY, an Oxn10 Corporation,

& Be ; seas: Bena

4 vs. 7

J OHN W. PECK, Tax CoMMISSIONER OF Om (Sussrrrvtep |

~ For C. Emory GLANDER, Former Tax. OMMISSIONER OF.

Oxto), anp JOHN J. ‘CARNEY, Avpitor. or CuyAHoca *

' Coty (Sus&rrrvrep: FOR JOHN A. “ZaxcEnur, Former

Avnitor OF Cuvanoca County), eee.

| : Appellees,

STATEMENT. IN ‘aaeick TO APPELLANT'S

‘STATEMENT IN SUPPORT ©¥ JURISDICTION AND

APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM.

_ The appellees in the above entitled cause, for thelr state- -

- ment in opposition to the statement in support-of jurisdic-.

“- tion of the appellant, filed herein, and in support of the

. appellees’ miotion*to dismiss the appeal ar ‘affirm. the judg-

ment.of the Supreme’ Court of Ohio, respottally state. the

following: .

I. ‘Goce of Issue on Appeal re

The. question sought to be presented in this ‘appeal is

: the claim of. the —— an ‘Ohio corporation, that Ohio

27

ee ; | a

statutes levying an ad . aloréts ax on boats par barges of

the appellant used in interstate commerce are contrary to .

and in vidlation of the Due Process of Law clause of the -

- Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of ‘the United —

. States. The appellees deny the claim of the appellant that

the Due Process of Law clause of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment of the Federal Constitution prevents Ohio from enfore: °

ing the personal property ‘tax it- “has assessed and levied.on ———--

all of the: boats and barges owned -by the appellant. .The -

Supreme Court of Ohio, in the opinion and judgment here

. challenged by the appellant, detertiined the L poaeiat 80.

‘raised by. the appellant adversely to it.

IL No Substantial Federal Question Presented by the

This c case icine the question of whether’ the State of

‘Ohio ean tax on an ad valorem basis, boats and. barges, :

registered from an Ohio port and owned by'an ‘Ohio ‘corpo- ©

' ration, whose ‘corporate domicile. and principal place of

-businesg is. in Ohio, which boats. and. barges are used-in

Appeal on ge ie oe

transporting,.on the inland waterway of the Mississippi and =

Ohio Rivers, crude oil of the. corporation from ports in

Louisiana and Tennessee to ports i in Kentncky.and Indiana.

“The question has been answered in the affirmative by the a

Supreme Court of the United States, which repeatedly has’

- declared the rule tiiat the domicile. of- the owner of vessels

* plying between the ports of different states is the situs for.

~ the purpose of taxation) where it does not appear that such

vessels have an actual situs elsewhere.

" Hage: The Pagifis Mail Steamship Company, 17 How., 4

596, 15 L. Ed., 254 (1855); ~ :

City of St. Louis v. Wiggins Ferry Gompany, i Wall, ea

423, 20 L. Ed., 19 (1871) ; ‘

,

1 Ayer t-Lord Tie a v. Commonwealth of Ken- -

tucky, 202 °U. S., 409, 421, 423, 50 L. .Ed., 1082, kool

(1906); a!

- Southern Pacific Comiena ve ‘Calasionibeatth of Ke en-

tucky, 222 U. S., 63, 68, 69, 74, 75, 56 L: Ea, 96, 98,

7 9, 100, 101 (1911).

Ss

Z

2)

The facts as set forth in the opinion of the Supreriie Cosi ee

". of Ohio in this case, as well as in the Statement i in Support

of J urisdiction, disclose that the ‘boats and barges of the

‘appellant were not used. wholly and exclusively i in-a state

- other than Ohio, The record fails-to disclose whether afiy

of the. boats or barges taxed were continuously throughout ee

: the year in another, state." Fhe record only shows that the

boats and barges during the tax: year were transiently

within | the_limits of other states wherein cargoes - _were

“loaded or rene in ports located i in such other states.

“.. he fact that appellant, in the future, because of the

decision in Ott, etc., v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Com-

' pany, etc., 336 U. S.,-169, 93 L. Ed., 585 (1949), may be re-

quired to pay personal property taxes i in some other state

“upon some. ‘part’ of its boats and-barges, does not preseutly —

deprive ( Ohio of its right to tax ‘such property, particularly |

in the light ‘of the case of Northwest Airlines, Inic., v. Min-

nesota, 322 U. &, 292, 295, 88 L. Hd., 1283; 1286 (1944), and

| what was, s ia. by me. Justice Frankfurter at page 295

(1286): <7 nes

ey The fact that. Northwest paid jiersonal :

_propgrty taxes for the year 1939 upon.‘sonie propor-

_ tion/of its ful value’ of its airplane fleet:in some: other

States does not abridge the’ ‘power of taxation of Min-.

nesota as the home State of the fleet in the circum-

stances of the present case. The taxabjlity of any part

of this fleet by any other State than Minnesota, in oe y

Gc : e.

. ,

) J eR ee rao >.

4 iy hey : ea

of the tazability, of the entire fleet by that State, is not

:> . now before us.~ It ‘wag not. shown in the Miller’ case

-* (2020. 8., 584) and it is not’shown here 1 that g ‘defined

part of the domiciliary corpus has acquired a per-~*

{Emphasis and pargnthetical matter ours.)

‘The doct rine: of tax apportionment by a omdjandetinny e

state appli to vessels engaged in interstate commerce and

not taxed by-the domiciliary state upheld by the Supreme

Court of the United States in Ott, etc., v. Mississippi Valley ©

- Barge Line Company, etc., 336 U..S., 169, 93 L,, Ed., 585

(1949), is ndt invalved in this appeal. . The fact that the

“principle of that case, involving vessels not taxed by the:

domiciliary state (page 170, supra), may be asserted some

manent location, i. e., a taxing situs, elsewhere. nln adh Foe

day -by some state doeg not raise now a substantial federal” os

. question. or preclude Ohio, as ‘the domiciliary state and the

state wherein the ‘appellant has its principal place of busi- |

: ness, and wherein, the home port of the boats and bar ges is |

located, from taxing such boats and barges (Northwest

- Airlines, Inc., ¥. Minwesota,322 U. S., 292, 88 L.'Ed., 1283) ; i

especially in «the absence of any showing in. the present |

record that the ‘boats and barges of the appellant were

" permanently located “elsewhere, and that some other state

havin acquired lawful jurisdigtion actually had taxed, in

whole or iy part, st boats and barges. . :

It is submitted that the claimed federal. constitutional

question -presented in the appeal has been so definitely

7 deter mined by the Supreme Court-of thé United States that -

no substantial questionsis presented ‘by.the-appellant én-—

titling, the appellant to invoke the Jurisdiction of the Su-

_ preme Court of . United States. .

BB Polaron irae ug ie .

ra reagcate 5 . ee Saas ms

Wuenerors, appellees respectfully move that the with

: appeal be dismissed or that the judgment and decree of t

er Court of Ohjo be affirmed: Q° ;

- .[sapore Topper, | Cite phe

_Speciat- Counsel to the. -

Attorney General of Ohio, :

rae whee for Agpeliges

By Conbasl:” | ;

¢. ‘WiLLiaM O’Nen,

«Attorney General of Ohio; * |

-Roserrt E. Lracu, AER Re ea

, Assistant Attorney Benéral i Olio,

- Attorneys for. Appellee. John W. Peck, Bie

‘ot faw Commissioner. seh

. Park “T. Cuuutan, |

Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County; ae

Savi Danaczay,” — - ae

First-Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Sie

<a Cuyahoga County,

-Atiorneys for Appellee John J. Carney,

Auditor of Cuyahéga County.

Sa