Majority
p. 243(82 Hun, 352.) PEOPLE ex rel. UNION PAC. TEA CO. v. ROBERTS, Comptroller. (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department. December 4, 1894.)
Headnote
1. Taxation—Exemptions—Manufacturing Corporations.A corporation engaged in mixing teas and roasting, mixing, and grinding coffee is not a manufacturing corporation, so as to exempt it from taxation under Laws 1880, c. 542.
2. Same—Review of Comptroller’s Decision.
The decision of the comptroller as to the amount of capital stock employed by a foreign corporation in "the. state will- not be disturbed unless it is clearly shown to be wrong.
p. 244Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ. The business of the Union Pacific Tea Company is a manufacturing business. “The material from which all manufactured things originate exists in a natural state, but the manufacturer, by the application to these materials of labor and skill, gives to them a new- and useful property.” People v. Wemple (N. Y. App.) 29 N. E. 808 . “The application of labor and skill to materials that exist in a natural state gives to them a new quality or characteristic, and adapts them to new uses, and the process by which this result is brought about is called manufacturing, whether the change is accomplished by means of manual labor or by means of machinery.” People v. Wemple, 29 N. E. 808 , 129 N. Y. 513 . “According ’to Webster, a manufacturer is one who works raw materials into wares suitable for use.” People v. Dock Co., 92 N. Y. 488 . Relator is not a manufacturing corporation. Manufacturing corporations include those companies whose chief and principal business is the manufacture and sale of artificial products. The term' “manufacture” presupposes: First, the raw material; second, the application thereto of labor, skill, and manipulation; third, the production of a new and distinct article, due wholly to the application of labor and skill of man to the raw material. People v. Ice Co., 1 N. E. 669 , 99 N. Y. 181 ; People v. Dock Co., 92 N. Y. 487 ; Byers v. Coal Co., 106 Mass. 131 ; Dudley v. Jamaica P. Aqueduct, 100 Mass. 183 ; Frazee v. Moffitt, 18 Fed. 584 , 20 Blatchf. 267 .
Application by the Union Pacific Tea Company for a writ of certiorari to review a tax made by James A. Roberts, comptroller of the state of New York.
Affirmed.
Relator deals in teas, coffees, spices, and baking powder, and claims exemption from taxation on the ground that it is a manufacturing corporation. Relator’s process of manufacture was described by one of its officers as follows: “We take tea in the original state, and expend labor upon it, by which we produce a mixture known as a special manufacture. We mix different kinds of tea together, and that makes a combination tea, and we ship it in that form. That is all we do, so far as manufacture is concerned. Forty-five per cent, of the tea we sell is treated in that way, and the remaining fifty-five per cent, we sell straight, just as we purchase it. We manufacture coffee. We buy in the raw state, roast it, bag part of it, and another part of it is ground and mixed and sold in that condition. Ninety-seven per cent, of the coffee we handle is treated in that way, and three per cent, sold straight. The coffee is purchased in New York, and a great portion of it is shipped in bags direct to our store, and put in bins. To illustrate: We take bags of coffee,, roast it, and ship it to our store in Albany. In some instances we mix different binds of coffee together, and that makes a combination coffee. That is all. The spices we buy boxed, and ship to our stores. Baking powder we take in cans, box it, and ship it. No change is made in it, or in the spices or condensed milk.”
Charles H. Luscomb, for relator.
Theodore E. Hancock, Atty. Gen. (John W. Hogan, of counsel), for respondent.
We think that relator cannot be deemed either a manufacturing corporation or one wholly engaged in carrying on manufacture within this state, and hence that it was liable to taxation under the provisions of chapter 5-42 of the Laws of 1880 and acts amendatory thereof. The determination of the comptroller as to the amount of capital stock employed by relator in this state should not be overruled, unless on ,the motion for revision it was clearly shown to be wrong. People v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 558 -566,
p. 245
29 N. E. 812 . After a careful examination of the proofs presented on the motion for a revision, we are unable to say that the reduction of the valuation of relator’s property within the state then made was not all it was entitled to. We think the estimate then made of the value of relator’s property in this state was not shown to be erroneous. An opinion does not seem to be called for in the case. The determination of the comptroller should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Knickerbocker Ice Co. 99 N. Y. 181 p. 244
- People v. New York Floating Dry-Dock Co. 92 N. Y. 487 p. 244
- People ex rel. American Contracting & Dredging Co. v. Wemple 129 N. Y. 558 p. 244