Dixie Ohio Co. v. COMM'N., 306 U.S. 72 (1939)

306 U.S.
72
59 S.Ct. 435
83 L.Ed. 495
DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO.

v.
STATE REVENUE COMMISSION OF GEORGIA et al.
No. 260.
Argued Dec. 16, 1938.
Decided Jan. 30, 1939.
Messrs. Allan Watkins and Edgar Watkins, both of Atlanta, Ga., for
appellant.
Messrs. O. H. Dukes, of Valdosta, Ga., and M. J. Yeomans, of Atlanta,
Ga., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether, as applied in this case by the highest court of the
State, the Georgia Maintenance Tax Act1 violates the commerce clause of
article 1, 8, cl. 3, or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A.
Appellant is an Ohio corporation engaged exclusively in interstate

transportation as a common carrier of property for hire by motor vehicles,
including hauling between points in Georgia and points in other States. A
certificate of convenience and necessity issued by the Interstate Commerce
Commission authorizing appellant's in terstate transportation in Georgia,2 does
not extend to transportation over rural post roads, which are roads not included
in the state highway system over which United States mail is carried.3
Appellant owns for use in its business about 100 pieces of equipment consisting
of trucks and tractors with manufacturer's rated capacity of a ton and a half and
two tons and trailers having factory weight of 4,000 pounds. If used to haul not
for hire, the tax on each ton-and-a-half motor vehicle is $15; on each two-ton
vehicle, $30; and on each trailer, $30. But when used to haul either as a
common or contract carrier for hire, the taxes are respectively, $50, $75, and
$50. 3.
4
For the collection of tax on one of appellant's two-ton trucks, the state revenue
commission obtained from the superior court of Fulton County an execution on
which it caused the sheriff to levy upon that vehicle. Appellant gave a bond to
the sheriff with an affidavit of illegality.4 In order to avoid seizure of all of
appellant's equipment, the state commission allowed it to deposit in escrow the
amount claimed under the Act on account of other equipment and agreed that
levy should be made only on the one truck. The commission demurred; the
superior court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the affidavit. The supreme
court affirmed. 186 Ga. 228, 197 S.E. 887.
In addition to the description of appellant's equipment, operations, and use of

Georgia highways given above, the statements of the affidavit of illegality, so
far as concerns the issues here to be decided, may be summarized as follows:
The Act directs that upon payment of the maintenance tax the director of the
motor vehicles division of the state commission shall issue a tag ( 9), and that
the money derived from the sale of these tags shall be allocated to the United
States rural postal roads division of the Georgia highway department. 11.
Thus, no part of it is applicable to highways over which appellant operates. The
maintenance taxes on its equipment for each year will be about $6,000. In
addition, the Georgia laws require it to pay $3 for a license tag5 and $25 for a
public service tag6 for each vehicle and six cents per gallon of gasoline
purchased in Georgia;7 it annually buys in that State about 90,000 gallons.
Two-thirds of the gasoline tax is for maintenance of state aid highways.8
Appellant hauls in seven States; annually its trucks travel an average of
6,870,000 miles of which 725,000, less than 11 per cent of the total, are in
Georgia. The 1936 total taxes collected by Georgia amounted to
$30,058,092.68, of which motor vehicles bore $19,207,909.59 in license and
fuel taxes.
In conclusion, the affidavit asserts that the tax in question is an unreasonable

fee for appellant's use of the roads and is therefore repugnant to the commerce
clause, and that it discriminates against carriers for hire in favor of carriers not
for hire and for that reason violates the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C.A.Const.
1. Is the Act repugnant to the commerce clause?
With exceptions not material here, it requires that all who own or have
exclusive right to use for more than 30 days a motor bus, truck,9 or trailer 'shall
pay a maintenance tax for the operation * * * upon and over the public roads of
this State' ( 1) according to a schedule ( 3) which specifies the amount of the
tax on each vehicle. The Act makes no distinction between vehicles used in
intrastate commerce and those used in interstate commerce. It discriminates in
favor of equipment used not for hire. It lays upon trucks and tractors taxes
graduated according to manufacturer's rated capacities and upon trailers
amounts graduated according to factory weights. The tax imposed on appellant
is the same as if it operated exclusively in intrastate commerce of carried on
both intrastate and interstate transportation.
10
It is elementary that a State may not impose a tax on the privilege of engaging
in interstate commerce. Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U.S. 163, 171, 48 S.Ct. 502,
504, 72 L.Ed. 833, 62 A.L.R. 45; Interstate Transit, Inc., v. Lindsey, 283 U.S.
183, 185, 51 S.Ct. 380, 75 L.Ed. 953; Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford,
305 U.S. 434, 59 S.Ct. 325, 83 L.Ed. 272; decided January 3, 1939, and cases
there cited; also those cited in the concurring opinion. But, consistently with the
commerce clause, a State may impose upon vehicles used exclusively for
interstate transportation a fair and reasonable tax as compensation for the
privilege of using its highways for that purpose. The applicable principle is
stated in Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385. We
there said (pages 623, 624, 35 S.Ct. page 142): 'In view of the many decisions
of this court there can be no serious doubt that where a state at its own expense
furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate
as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefor. The amount of the
charges and the method of collection are primarily for determination by the
state itself; and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some
uniform, fair, and practical standard, they constitute no burden on interstate
commerce.' That rule has been applied in many cases. See e.g. Kane v. New
Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 168, 169, 37 S.Ct. 30, 32, 33, 61 L.Ed. 222; Clark v.
Poor, 274 U.S. 554, 557, 47 S.Ct. 702, 703, 71 L.Ed. 1199; Sprout v. South
Bend, supra, page 170, 48 S.Ct. page 504; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v.
Georgia Comm'n, 295 U.S. 285, 289, 55 S.Ct. 709, 710, 79 L.Ed. 1439; Morf v.
Bingaman, 298 U.S. 407, 412, 56 S.Ct. 756, 758, 80 L.Ed. 1245. While
ordinarily state action is deemed valid unless the contrary appears, we have
held that to sustain a charge by the State for the use or privilege of using its
roads for interstate transportation, it must affirmatively appear that the charge
is exacted as compensation or to pay the cost of policing its highways. Sprout v.
South Bend, supra; Interstate Transit, Inc. v. Lindsey, supra, 186, 51 S.Ct. page
381; Ingels v. Morf, 300 U.S. 290, 294, 57 S.Ct. 439, 441, 81 L.Ed. 653.
11
The scope and language of the challenged enactment unmistakably disclose

intention of the State to require payment of compensation for the privilege of
operating over its roads the specified vehicles for the transportation of property.
It contains no hint of hostility to interstate commerce or of purpose to impose a
charge on the privilege or business of interstate transportation. The exaction is
not to be deemed offensive to the commerce clause merely because the State, in
the conduct of its fiscal affairs, chooses to use part or all of the proceeds for
purposes other than the construction, improvement, or maintenance of its
highways. Clark v. Poor, supra, page 557, 47 S.Ct. page 703; Morf v.
Bingaman, supra, 412, 56 S.Ct. page 758.
12
The affidavit of illegality fails to allege any facts tending to show that a
reasonable charge for the privilege is less than the amount exacted for it.
Appellant does not claim that the privilege to operate for a year 100 pieces of
its equipment over any or all the State's roads is not worth $6,000, the amount
of the taxes in controversy. It does not disclose what the taxes in question
amount to per truck, tractor, or trailer mile, per ton hauled, or per ton mile, nor
does it compare the amount of the taxes with total operating expenses or with
operating revenues. The figures furnished indicate that the tax imposed on
account of the use of each vehicle amounts to about 20 cents a day and that, on
appellant's business in 1936, it was about eight mills per vehicle mile. The
amounts paid for license tags, public service tags, and taxes on gasoline are
without significance in this case. Interstate Busses Corp. v. Blodgett, 276 U.S.
245, 251, 252, 48 S.Ct. 230, 231, 72 L.Ed. 551. The allegation to the effect that
in 1936 motor vehicles in Georgia bore, in license and fuel taxes, over 62 per
cent of the total taxes collected by the State is too vague for use in any estimate
of or study for the ascertainment of the value of appellant's use, or of its
privilege to use, the State's roads.
13
Appellant's failure to disclose whether it fully availed itself of the privilege to

use the roads leaves the figures reflecting actual use without foundation and
worthless as a measure or indication of the value of that privilege. And, in view
of the seemingly low charge for the operation of its vehicles per day or mile, its
failure to furnish evidentiary details material to the issue of reasonableness
makes against its contention that the challenged exactions so exceed the worth
of the granted use of the roads that they are to be deemed taxes on the privilege
of carrying on its business of interstate transportation and tends to confirm
appellee's claim that they constitute pay for the specified operations over the
State's roads.
14
We find that the challenged enactment does not violate the commerce clause.
15
2. Is the Act repugnant to the equal protection clause? Appellant insists that it
is because of the higher taxes imposed on those who haul for hire. But it fails
to show lack of facts sufficient to justify the discrimination. In the absence of
proof to the contrary, it is to be assumed that the use of the roads by one
hauling not for hire is generally limited to transportation of his own property as
an incident to his occupation or business and that it is substantially less than
that of one who is engaged in the business of common carrier thereon for hire.
As hauling not for hire is likely to be occasional and accessory and as hauling
for hire is a business the success of which depends on the loading of the
vehicles used and mileage made by them, the classification complained of may
not be held arbitrary or without reasonable foundation. Morf v. Bingaman,
supra, page 413, 56 S.Ct. page 759; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Georgia
Comm'n supra, pp. 290, 291, 55 S.Ct. page 711; Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U.S.
169, 176, 177, 54 S.Ct. 142, 145, 78 L.Ed. 247; Continental Baking Co. v.
Woodring, 286 U.S. 352, 370, 371, 52 S.Ct. 595, 601, 76 L.Ed. 1155, 81
A.L.R. 1402, et seq. Bradley v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 289 U.S. 92, 97, 53 S.Ct.
577, 579, 77 L.Ed. 1053, 85 A.L.R. 1131; Alward v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 509,
513, 514, 51 S.Ct. 273, 274, 75 L.Ed. 496, 75 A.L.R. 9; Bekins Van Lines v.
Riley, 280 U.S. 80, 82, 50 S.Ct. 64, 74 L.Ed. 178; Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S.
140, 144, 44 S.Ct. 257, 259, 68 L.Ed. 596. Appellant's contention that the Act
violates the equal protection clause is without merit.
16
Affirmed.
17
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the result.
18
Mr. Justice ROBERTS took no part in the consideration or decision of this

case.
Laws 1937, p. 155.
206, Motor Carrier Act, 1935, 49 Stat. 551, 49 U.S.C. 306, 49 U.S.C.A.
306.
Laws 1937, p. 914.
Code 1933, 92-7301.
Laws 1935, p. 157.
Code 1933, 68-623.
Laws 1937, p. 174.
Laws 1937, p. 180.
The Act defines 'truck' to 'include any self-propelled vehicle designed * * * for
drawing other vehicles, but having no provision for carrying loads
independently, except what are commonly known as farm tractors.' 2, subd.
B, Laws Ga.1937, p. 157.

Dixie Ohio Co. v. COMM'N., 306 U.S. 72 (1939)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dixie Ohio Co. v. COMM'N., 306 U.S. 72 (1939)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dixie Ohio Co. v. COMM'N., 306 U.S. 72 (1939)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

306 U.S.

DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO.

Appellant is an Ohio corporation engaged exclusively in interstate

In addition to the description of appellant's equipment, operations, and use of

In conclusion, the affidavit asserts that the tax in question is an unreasonable

1. Is the Act repugnant to the commerce clause?

The scope and language of the challenged enactment unmistakably disclose

Appellant's failure to disclose whether it fully availed itself of the privilege to

Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the result.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS took no part in the consideration or decision of this

Laws 1937, p. 155.

Laws 1937, p. 914.

Code 1933, 92-7301.

Laws 1935, p. 157.

Code 1933, 68-623.

Laws 1937, p. 174.

Laws 1937, p. 180.

You might also like