# Statement Opposing Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss or Affirm — Standard Oil Co. v. Peck > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386407_0102%3A6 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Statement Opposing Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss or Affirm - **Published:** January 1, 1952 - **Citation:** 342 U.S. 382 ## Text 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