State v. Transmission MacHinery Co.
State v. Transmission MacHinery Co., 103 So. 180 (La. 1925).
The holding in the court’s own words
From which we conclude that defendant’s business consists of casting wheels (pulleys) out of iron, trimming and finishing same by means of lathes, and drilling therein such holes as are needed for fitting them where they belong.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- State v. Magnolia Packing Co. 35 So. 2d 422 La. 1948
- State v. American Creosote Works, Inc. 112 So. 412 La. 1927
- Downs v. Dunn 111 So. 82 La. 1926
Opinion text
ST. PAUL, J. Plaintiff seeks to collect from defendant for the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, a license (occupation) tax for conducting the business of wholesale dealer. Defendant answers that its business is not that of wholesale dealer, but of manufacturer. Under article 229, Const, of 1913, all man: ufacturers (with some exceptions, presently immaterial) were exempt from the payment of a license tax. I. The evidence shows that the business of defendant is “casting work”; that it has a machine shop in which it has power driven lathes and drill presses; that its product consists of iron pulleys, i. e. wheels, to be fixed to revolving shafts, over which belts run, whereby power is transmitted, and machinery operated. From which we conclude that defendant’s business consists of casting wheels (pulleys) out of iron, trimming and finishing same by means of lathes, and drilling therein such holes as are needed for fitting them where they belong. II. The trial judge was of opinion that this constituted manufacturing; and so are we. Decree. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.