63 N.Y.S. 76 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1900
Two questions are here for determination. Is the relator a manufacturing corporation and entitled to exemption from the tax upon its capital stock as the statute provides ? If not exempt from such taxation, is the six-year limitation fixed by section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable in this case ?
As to the first question. The evidence taken before the Coznptz'oller is not conflicting; it is the testimony of the president of the corpoz'ation; it is full and undisputed, and whether or znot the relator is a manufactuzing corpoz'ation, such as is entitled to exemption from tax upon its capital stock, znust be judged frozn that. Briefly stated, this is the evidence. The relator is a domestic corporation and has been in existence since 1887.- Its coz’poz’ate powei’s are limited to the znanufacture and sale of the so-called “ fountain pen.” Since its oz-ganization it has engaged in no business other than the manufacture and sale of a patented article known to the tz'ade as the “L. E. Waterman fountain pen,” or the “ Ideal ” fountain pen. The relator is the exclusive owner of letters patent which gives it the exclusive right to znanufacture and put upon the market this specific, article. • It is materially different in constz’uction from the fountain pens of other znanufacturez-s, and the diffez’ence lies in the proper adjustznent of the pezi and feed. This is the most important factor in the construction of a serviceable fountain pen, and this is the thing patented. This is the work by way of manufacturing which the relator does, and this work creates an integral fountain pen which is four times more valuable than the parts purchased by the relator..
Again the witness says: “-None of the fountain pens are sold that are not completed at our factory by special work by our workmen, and at that place. There are secrets and details of our work which no other establishment understands or can perform.”
The relator makes, chases and attaches to some of the fountain pens- a gold band, but this is only ornamental, and adds nothing by way of utility. It appears from this evidence before the Comp
Whoever creates a useful thing by mechanical labor is entitled usually to be called a manufacturer. The fact that he purchases rather than makes some of the parts does not destroy that character. A boilermaker is a manufacturer, although he purchases the boiler plates rolled into form, and purchases also the tubes and the rivets. So with the cabinetmaker, who buys the wood he uses in polished form or carved, and buys the cloth, hair and leather he uses. No man ufacturer of the finished product in this age works up the raw material. That is done by specialists all along the line. The practical manufacturer assembles the material he needs from all quarters in its most finished condition and does the rest himself.
The relator is not the manufacturer of the rubber fountain — nor wholly—nor is he of the gold pens wholly, but I think he may
The relator was wholly engaged in manufacturing within this State, and so came within the exemption declared in the law of 1889. Under this law, for most of the term covered by this assessment, the obligation upon corporations was created. I do not think any of the cases cited, viz., People ex rel. S. T. C. Co. v. Wemple (133 N. Y. 323); People ex rel. Tiffany & Co. v. Campbell (144 id. 166); People ex rel. W. E. Co. v. Campbell (145 id. 587); People ex rel. U. P. T. Co. v. Roberts (145 id. 375); People ex rel. N. E. D. Meat Co. v. Roberts (155 id. 408), declare any principle which, applied to this case, would lead to a different conclusion. The opinions expressed in the. cases cited rather lead me to the conclusion reached, that the relator is such a manufacturing corporation as entitles it to exemption from tax upon its capital stock.
In view of the disposition made of the first question, the second becomes unimpoi’tant.
The determination by the Comptroller, for the reason that the relator was, during all the time covered by the assessment, exempt from taxation upon its capital stock, should be annulled and the taxes paid to secure the right' to the writ of certiorari should be repaid to relator, with fifty dollars; costs besides disbursements.
All concurred.
Determination of the. Comptroller reversed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.