Reymann Brewing Co. v. Brister
Headline: Ohio’s liquor trafficking tax is upheld, allowing the state to tax out-of-state brewers who sell through local stores or storage while exempting certain factory sales.
Holding: The Court affirmed that Ohio’s Dow law validly taxes persons or companies that sell and deliver beer at places within Ohio other than the place of manufacture and does not unlawfully discriminate against foreign brewers.
- Out-of-state brewers with local Ohio stores or storage must pay the trafficking tax.
- Brewers selling at their Ohio factory in gallon-or-more quantities avoid the tax.
- Sales shipped directly from factory to purchasers are not taxed as local trafficking.
Summary
Background
The dispute involves the Reymann Brewing Company, a West Virginia brewer whose property was seized to collect a $350 yearly Ohio tax for each place where intoxicating liquor is sold. Ohio’s “Dow law” imposes that assessment on anyone trafficking in liquors but excludes sales of one gallon or more made at the place of manufacture. The brewer argued this scheme illegally favors Ohio manufacturers and improperly regulates trade between states.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the law actually discriminates against foreign manufacturers or unlawfully regulates interstate commerce. The opinion finds no hostile intent in the law’s language and explains the exemption applies to anyone who manufactures within Ohio, whether domestic or foreign. The Court also treated the measure as a valid exercise of the State’s police power aimed at limiting saloons and on-site drinking; federal law allows states to apply such police measures to imported liquor. On the agreed facts, the brewer had a storehouse in Steubenville where it sold and delivered beer, making it subject to the tax.
Real world impact
The decision means brewers that establish places in Ohio for storage and local sale are liable for the trafficking assessment, while shipments from a factory and sales at the factory in gallon-or-more quantities remain outside the tax. The Circuit Court’s dismissal of the brewer’s challenge was affirmed, so the tax as applied in this case stands.
Dissents or concurrances
Mr. Justice Harlan concurred in the result, agreeing with the outcome of affirming the lower court’s decree.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?