. _v._ Lipscomb, 244 U.S. 346 (1917);
Cheney Bros. _v._ Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 147 (1918).
[583] Caldwell _v._ North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622 (1903).
[584] Norfolk & W.R. Co. _v._ Sims, 191 U.S. 441 (1903).
[585] Rearick _v._ Pennsylvania, 203 U.S. 507 (1906); Dozier _v._
Alabama, 218 U.S. 124 (1910); Davis _v._ Virginia, 236 U.S. 697 (1915).
[586] 203 U.S. at 512.
[587] Real Silk Hosiery Mills _v._ Portland, 268 U.S. 325 (1925).
[588] Heyman _v._ Hays, 236 U.S. 178 (1915). _See also_ Hump Hairpin Co.
_v._ Emmerson, 258 U.S. 290 (1922), holding that business done by a
corporation through orders which were approved in a State where its
tangible property and offices were located, but which were first taken
by its salesmen in other States, was interstate, although the tax
involved was sustained.
[589] Ficklen _v._ Shelby County Taxing District, 145 U.S. 1, 21 (1892).
[590] New York ex rel. Hatch _v._ Reardon, 204 U.S. 152 (1907); _Cf._
Nathan _v._ Louisiana, 8 How. 73 (1850).
[591] Ware _v._ Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908). _See also_ Brodnax
_v._ Missouri, 219 U.S. 285 (1911).
[592] 222 U.S. 210 (1911).
[593] 233 U.S. 16 (1914).
[594] Ibid. 23. _See also_ Superior Oil _v._ Mississippi ex rel. Knox,
280 U.S. 390 (1930).
[595] Chassaniol _v._ Greenwood, 291 U.S. 584 (1934).
[596] Wiloil Corp. _v._ Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 169, 173 (1935); _see
also_ Minnesota _v._ Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 (1933).
[597] 309 U.S. 33 (1940).
[598] Best & Co. _v._ Maxwell. 311 U.S. 454, 455 (1940).
[599] 300 U.S. 577 (1937). _Cf._ Hinson _v._ Lott, 8 Wall. 148 (1869).
Here was involved a tax of fifty cents per gallon on all spiritous
liquors brought into the State. Comparing the tax with a similar one
imposed upon liquors manufactured in the State, the Court upheld the
statute. "The taxes were complementary and were intended to effect
equality."
[600] 300 U.S. at 583-584. Some subsequent use tax cases in the
Henneford pattern are the following: Bacon & Sons _v._ Martin was
decided in a unanimous _per curiam_ opinion. It involved a Kentucky
statute which imposed a tax "on the 'receipt' of cosmetics in the State
by any Kentucky retailer" equal to twenty per cent of the invoice price
plus transportation cost, if any to the Kentucky dealer. The Kentucky
court held that "the imposition of the tax against the retailer is not
on the act of receiving the cosmetics, but on the sale and use thereof,
after the retailer
|