*1
EUREKA PIPE LINE CO. HALLANAN. 265
Syllabus.
260.
Boyd v.
Claire, Bank, 116 155. Lincoln Savings Wisc. Wallace v. 630. Tenn. 89
Decree affirmed. no took the decision part Me. Justice Brandéis this case. LINE HALLANAN,
EUREKA PIPE COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER, TAX ET AL. STATE OP THE ERROR TO THE COURT APPEALS OP STATE SUPREME OP VIRGINIA. WEST Argued 12, 9, No. November 1921. Decided December 1921. 255. judgment 1. A of a state court which sustains state tax on inter- objection the statute under which state over imposed unconstitutional, by reviewable writ it was here error, and the less so because court reached its none below applicable construing the to intrastate com- result statute by erroneously classifying as intrastate the com- merce question. merce P. 270. producers line received oil from
2. A in West Vir- their, subject right equal quantities thereafter to order ginia, to transported and grade destinations, delivered to local of like to tariff, under destinations an interstate- extra-state sub- or to law have in its ject duty its under the state and con- satisfy enough orders; charged nected reservoirs storage gathering charge law; under producers a company’s control, became oil as received oil, through piped like commingled company’s with other and, system pipes, except trunk réla- delivery, diverted to local tively ordered small became quantities through passing of oil out a stream State. part of transportation, in so far Held, tax on as measured that a moving produced in but out of West quantities P. under the Commerce Clause. 27Í. void reversed; certiorari denied. writ of 87 W. Va. TERM,
Argument Plaintiff in Error. U. S. brought to a a tax a suit judgment sustaining Error in error to restrain its enforcement. See case, post, the next *2 Crawford, Frank L. whom Mr. James M. Beck briefs, plaintiff
was on the
error.
in a
having
transported
The oil
been
continuous stream
relatively
and out of
State
as to
small
through
(except
portions
State)
diverted to
within the
and hav-
refineries
*
outset of
ing
very
journey
by
at the
its
been delivered
to, and
producers
custody
remained
aof,
common
(the plaintiff)
carrier
until so
transported, was
inter-
state commerce
the moment was
by
received
plaintiff. Western
Telegraph
Union
Co. v. Speight, 254
17;
Hill,
U. S.
United States
In of plaintiff’s operating view contracts, and of the Pipe Line Act of West construed by its high- court, est the delivery by to a plaintiff consignee like amount of grade the same lieu of that re- 267 HALLANAN. LINE CO. v. PIPE
EUREKA in Error. Argument 265. for Plaintiff very equivalent law ceived, was 87 Bailey Bensley, v. 396; 87 Va. received. W. Wilder, Minn. 149; Bank 34 556; Exchange v. National Hall Minn. Pillsbury, 43 below,
In of such court view construction oil, thereof, or like amounts the evidence that was, trans- be, actually owners intended its presumed out of the it will be ported through and oil was received interstate trans- therefore, was inter- transportation, portation, Terminal Inter- state Southern Co. v. commerce. Pacific U. Commission, 498; Worthing- S. Commerce Case, Case, supra; Railroad supra; ton Sabine Tram Co., Ry. Louisiana v. Texas & Commission Pacific Case, Lipscomb See Creswill v. supra. Knights (cid:127)U. S. 336; ' *3 225 S. 246. Pythias, U. of if Even the view of court below were adopted, of charge covered service gath- the oil to trunk conveying plaintiff’s lines, and ering through main transportation and for the plaintiff charged lines destination the further rate al- to (which, the Interstate Commerce Commission by lowed admitted), only still this be a.case of re- is not would re-billing such would route, en be immaterial billing and the parties general of the intention view Worthington Case, supra; of business. Sabine course Case, Case, Lipscomb Atchison, supra; supra; Tram Harold, 241 Topeka Ry. 371; Fe Co. U. S. & Santa v. Covington, 235 U. S.’ 537-. Covington Ry. South Co. v. charge one case of double continu- But it was interpret it is not service, necessary ous transaction re-billing. as one of intrastate interstate transactions are so in-
Where terwoven, authority Congress extends to the whole Cases, 352, 382, situation. Rate 230 Minnesota U. S. 268 TERM,
Argument for in Error. Defendants 257 U. S. Southern Ry. States, Co. v. United 222 399; U. S. 20; R. R. 244 Winfield, Erie Co. U. 170; v. S. Philadelphia & Reading Polk, Ry. 256 Co. U. S. v. Avisy Fred O. Blue Mr. S. B. with whom Mr. England,
E. T. Attorney General the State of West and Mr. Gordon Wm. Mathews on were brief, defendants error. in question
There is
not drawn
validity of a statute
authority
an
exercised
any
or
under
on
being
ground
repugnant
their
the Constitution,
States,
or
United
treaties
laws
the necessary
validity,
in favor
as to
decision
so
justify review
error; nor is
here
writ or
there drawn in
by
question any
immunity
right,
claimed
privilege
under the Con-
title,
law's.of
stitution,
treaties or
the United
States, so as
review
certiorari. The claim of
justify
plaintiff is, in
the oil is a
effect,
subject
that because
lawful
of inter-
neither be
commerce,
tax,
nor
tax,
prior
the measure of
made
determination
placed
it shall
its owner
commerce.
correct in holding
The court below was
it was the
a tax
impose
upon
intent to
legislative
intrastate
measured
transportation
Quohg Ham
of such commerce.
Wah
v. In-
amount
Co.
Commission,
U.
445;
Accident
S.
dustrial
Kehrer.v.
Adams,
Stewart,
60;
Pullman Co.
U. S.
189 U. S.
York¡
58;
232 U. S.
Barrett
Platt v. New
v. New
420;
Ry.
Louisville &c.
Co. v.
York,
14;
Mississippi,
232 U. S.
*4
Co.,
Chicago
164;
cfee.R. R.
94
Peik v.
U.
587;
133 U. S.
S.
This
Florida,
state, Pennsyl- .it. v, 192 U. Knights 20, controlling. R. R. Co. S. vania by plaintiff of the cases relied on in many [Distinguishing error.] delivered the opinion Holmes the court. Justice to prevent against
This is a bill the enforcement Virginia engag- of a statute of West that forbids plaintiff in transporting petroleum in lines ing pipe the business of a tax of two payment without cents each barrel Extraordinary Session, transported. of oil Acts 1919, contrary Con- up It is statute c. 5. set the. ways, of the United States several one of these stitution a tax applied upon being plaintiff imposes system States. The owns a among with other connecting pipe lines West Kentucky Pennsyl- on the west lines Ohio Through plaintiff’s vania on the east of State. line and in a stream to flows continuous twenty-two million amounting to over all beyond —in four 1919. There are ending June year barrels *5 TERM, 257Ü.S. Opinion of the Court. grades of the oil thus moved. Two of produced these are in partly Virginia. West According figures accepted by the defendants in bar- error, 9,076,599.83 out of total Pennsylvania rels of the grade 6,510,081.51 barrels came State, upon this over six millions which the plaintiff' charge- twenty, made a thirty, later cents for gathering, on an tariff and interstate also under local But statute. all the oil of same grade was mixed, regardless source, Pennsylvania grade 1,239,099.55 barrels in Virginia. were used West It admitted that the tax in respect be levied n last item, but the us question before is whether the tax can laid the whole upon product upon State imposed which was charge. Circuit Court of the State held that the statute Supreme
was void. The Court of sustained it Appeals so produced Virginia far as the oil West was concerned. But the Court declared the act should be construed apply only urged commerce within the State it is jurisdiction that there no here of writ of error be- no question validity cause there is as to the of a statute so limited. The in error also applied for writ objection of certiorari so that would be- immaterial required were we not to determine upon which proceeding In decree should issue. view that necessity we dis- of the matter pose before going further. Upon the conjecture declaration of the Court we may that if it had considered that the oil question moved agreed it would below, have Court on ground argued this it is mistake, if any, was not in approving the statute but the Court’s conception of interstate commerce. But we -must look at what the done, Court has not at its mode of reaching the result. What it done is to decide that has the statute covers all produced in West shall be upheld in so doing. The nature the mistake that in- PIPE LINE CO. v. HALLANAN.
EUREKA Opinion of the Court. A the act is case would be with- duced immaterial. this jurisdiction Court error drawn from the *6 only to that a was addressed intrastate declaration statute freight if it to applied passing commerce wholesale across continent. fact the error less does the the principle not affect the involved. But furthermore to Court confined intrastate commerce the statute to that embraced defined,” is, as above commerce what on. plaintiff the carried affecting to the facts the merits. When oil
We return is received from the he receives a credit on the producer is plaintiff line, books of and charged thereafter pipe being required for as it is storage, called, in keep laws to oil its enough of West tanks satisfy Code, and to such credits. pipes § oil it producer If the to deliver outside the State desires to is called a pipe hands line what tender many oil, for so barrels of the kind of specified consignee, expressed be an naming the to to filed identified tariff with the Interstate Commerce Com- joint mission. This is said to be tariff which the they but do not share in connecting share, carriers twenty for thirty charged gathering cents the oil. The is. argument for the defendants error of course that the is to sell or without producer free within State and place that the movement of taken gathering having before any given order is and while the still can-do producer he it must be as intrastate. likes, regarded as
It not seem to for question us, does matter before regarded whether the be mak- pipe to line as the. it it receives a debtor ing owner what for the bank, as in the or as akin to amounts, case of those trans- held make the recipient actions that are bailee of the mingled common, mass bailors tenants been debtor to have assumed. or bailee Whether seems any specific controls the movement of OCTOBER TERM, 1921.
Opinion of the Court. 257 TJ.S. its hands and the bailor its doing assents to so. The- bailor assents to becoming part a stream is pouring through and out of the State. Its only right to call on the pipe line to divert a portion that stream. So far as it goes calls out the State general current seems us to be dis- tinguishable the rest admitted to move interstate any commerce. No bailor specific has title to oil, and to deny the character the whole simply might stream because some one have called for a delivery that would been probably have made from it in an that did not happen, going event- too far. The charges storage seem to us not to affect storage merely the case. The enough means that oil must kept in the tanks and satisfy credits. The *7 a tank on oil runs- into one side and out on the other. may regarded tank as a pipe The of larger size. in right the error was or wrong in Whether gathering charge state for its relying upon law its attitude not matter here. does many times, has interstate repeated
As been and, as conception, is remarked the practical a court of “ instance, tax be valid must not in its practical first burden operation and interstate effect commerce.” It as a practical to us matter the transmission appears that of oil was of this stream interstate commerce from the flow, that and it was beginning the less so none* -if different orders had been received pipe the changed it would have the destination upon line which in and at it the which fact arrived. started We that the repeat company producer the destination of oil. any specific the master of There- its and action of fore intent determined the character beginning, from and neither the intent nor movement changed. of direction the movement
Decree reversed. Writ certiorari denied. PIPE HALLANAN. EUREKA CO. v. LINE J., Clarke, dissenting. Clarke, dissenting. Justice I greatly regret I cannot concur in opinion and in and I it judgment case, my the court this think is I duty briefly grounds my dissent. The Line is Pipe Company Eureka a West Virginia wholly lines which corporation, owning pipe are within twenty-two that State. Of the half millions of company transported in year barrels of which the July 1919, controversy, ending in six one-half produced millions of barrels were West from other southern and the remainder came western produced Virginia, Of that West one and States. one- millions barrels were delivered to refineries in quarter balance was delivered to State, connecting line, for transportation. at the state carriers, as to oil from other controversy There no States or state-produced oil that was delivered to as to refineries holding but the court State; ultimately State, went out of the oil, which state-produced the time left moved interstate commerce wells, agree. I cannot" forty-three owns about hundred miles of which, all of- the excep- West
pipe line main or line, miles of trunk tion used few hundred ” twenty-seven oil from purpose for the covers them as with network. counties —it *8 of doing method business was as follows: admitted The producer oil was delivered com- When “a what is called credit balance,” to him it issued pany, reciting that had on its he credit books paper a which was barrels of oil and number of it con-' designated for the “ entry storage charges.” for the of blank a tained points moved some one on several oil delivered thus all within the company, State and lines the main “ “or in the record as central points,” delivery designated TERM, 1921. J., dissenting. U.S. Clarke, “ points,” or of .the oil points.” tariff This movement was ^by under a tariff filed with the State company Public Commission, which, year Service in the under dis- cussion, read: “ Local tariff The rates named in this are for Tariff. intrastate transportation petroleum.” of crude “ transporting For oil wells to de- livery points within State West 20 cents. cent.” per day, Storage, l/40th between Thus, by parties, the contract was transportation points, received for within the State consignee or only. named, No destination was but, on charge a was contrary, provided for indefinite storage, shows was often paid, which the record the parties “ part a calling transportation united this Local shipment.” and an intra-state .. give any
Further, in order the oil intrastate de- livery required to issue the owner the company a “ delivery 'order,” if called a he paper but, wished it to move interstate commerce he must deliver to' the com- “a an different order called tender pany entirely of ship- place ment,” paper naming which reciting the transportation outside the State designated interstate tariff. should under a All before transportation issuing of the ” “ was under the local tender tariff de- transportation released for It was not scribed. or de- either or kind, interstate, state livery any until a “ ” ” tender of .shipment delivery order de- was. the owner and when livered to the the latter oil moved thereafter under was delivered the the terms tariff, filed joint with another, the Inter- Washington Commission at state Commerce in conjunction other Company, companies Eureka with connecting owning lines its mains at line.
EUREKA PIPE LINE CO. v. HALLANAN. 275 J., dissenting. Clarke, To this that, we must add as West corpora- tion, the Eureka Company was statute that State, requiring that any company engaged transportation of petroleum in the State shall any not in manner ship or transport, permit or t'o be or shipped or transported, any manner remove from the or tanks pipe lines such company, any petroleum without a “ ” (a written order order for intrastate, aor “ ” tender of shipment for interstate, delivery); and also “ every shall company at all times have in their tanks an amount of oil equal merchantable aggregate outstanding credit balances, on ... the books thereof.”
If this all were there was the transaction, plainly the oil not be moving could considered as in interstate com- “ ” until a merce tender of shipment issued, for until time it was consignee without a destination and was held tariff, providing under a local a rate of twenty barrel per cents for intrastate transportation, and charge storage. But the court concludes that-this plainly intrastate shipment is converted into an aby oil, viz: that when the single thus moving circumstance, trunk, tariff for a local charge, under local reached the “ ” happened if that to’ be line, running oil of the quality, same kind and the local oil was turned into the main and was at once moved out of the evenffhbugh ” “a shipment may tender have been' to- issued- give noted,.how- it and it destination. It is to be release “running” if was not ever, local oil reached quality like kind and when the the trunk junction (tariff point) it held at the until like line, was ” again, to be run when’ was sent forward. day been for a or for two This have weeks. oil became circumstance,
This under these is pouring conditions a of a stream that “part through TERM, 1921. U.S. dissenting. Clarke, J., *10 an State,” held, gave shipment it is the and of the out left moment it the wells. from the character “ a court, the as adopted, says practical holding This ” precisely it is because it but matter, of the conception conception to find technical highly me too seems to I dissent business, that practical in the world of place physical It the is true conclusion. but removal with- stated, out of the moved, as no reduction whatever of caused out tender volume, by State; like oil the in the volume of parties by of the the statute, the contract the continue undiminished must company, tariff filed the “ ” the evi- credit balances outstanding to all meet company superintendent the assistant dence of nn constantly with. The complied requirement that this therefore, allows the mere busi- court, conclusion of. (it storage tank- saves ness convénience all into interstate which convert age) to treated, and and conduct by their contract parties, transportation, an intrastate paid for, as charged substance subordinates, my judgment, thereby form of the transaction. the merest of oil over transporting I this do, Believing, as ” of lines four thousand miles approximately trunk lines, shipment, local as in the State to I think it to the State should be, all declared parties the' impose a reasonable license or occupation permitted company engaged in such extensive state upon tax traffic, the volume of such and that measured activity, Supreme Court of West judgment Appeals scope to this the statute should be Virginia'restraining affirmed. dissenting opinion reasons stated Mr.
For the Dahnke-Walker term, in No. 30 of this Brandéis Justice Bondurant, I post, v. think this case is Milling Co. upon certiorari, review this court writ subject to v. HALLANAN. UNITED FUEL GAS CO. Statement the Case. and that, therefore, the motion to dismiss the writ error should been have granted, but has seemed to me I important discuss, as have done, question of in- terstate commerce involved. Pitney and Mr. join Justice Mr. Brandéis Justice
this as to merits of opinion controversy. also concurs question Justice Brandéis jurisdiction. GAS COMPANY
UNITED FUEL HALLANAN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER THE OF STATE OF *11 ET WEST VIRGINIA, AL. THE TO SUPREME COURTOP APPEALS
ERROR OP THE STATE
OP WEST VIRGINIA. Argued 9, 10, No. 276. November 1921. Decided December
1921. sustained, A following Pipe 1. writ of error Eureka Line Hal- Co. v. lanan, ante, 265. P. 280. gas, purchased
2. Natural collected within moving through pipes, State com- and the of other panies it, beyond which it sells continuous streams destined is a commerce, of interstate transportation which the State tax. not P. '280. Held,'Ih&i gas interstate character of so destined was not hy right transporting
affected companies local divert to destinations, quantities the fact that smaller "forlocal n commingled proportions were with the other and the between precisely
two were fixed. P. 281. 396, reversed; petition for
87 W. Va. certiorari dismissed. to a judgment Error in a sustaining tax suit error to restrain its enforcement. pre- See the case, ante, ceding