Molina v. Rafferty

MOLINA v. RAFFERTY No. 11988, Apr. 4, 1918 Jacinto Molina, plaintiff and appellee, v. James J. Rafferty, Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant and appellant TOPIC AS PER OUTLINE Statutory construction > Definition, concept, and purpose FACTS AND ISSUE Act No. 2339, section 41 provides that: “In computing the tax above imposed transactions in the following commodities shall be excluded: […] (c) Agricultural products when sold by the producer or owner of the land where grown, whether in their original state or not.” Molina contends that the fishes he produced as were those upon which the tax in question was levied are agricultural products (not merely WON fish in general constitute an agricultural product). SC: Yes, said fishes are considered agricultural products. RATIO DECIDENDI The decision cites Judge Cooley who said, “The underlying principle of all construction is that the intent of the legislature should be sought in the words employed to express it, and that when found it should be made to govern.” DISCUSSION Assumption: By exempting agricultural products from this tax, the farming industry would be favored and the development of the country’s resources would be encouraged. Inference: The objective was to levy the “merchant’s tax” upon those who are engaged in profiting from goods produced by others, but to exempt from the tax all persons directly producing goods from the land. On the term “agricultural products” To accomplish the objective, instead of making a list of all exempted products, the Legislature has grouped them all under the term “agricultural products.” If the artificial fish production is not to be included in the exemption, this must be based upon the inadequacy of the language used, rather than the assumption that the intention was

to exclude artificial fish producers from the benefits conferred upon the producers of other substances. The term “agricultural products” includes everything grown upon the land, which serves to satisfy human needs, be it plants or animals. Enclosing a given area of land and flooding it with water to grow aquatic plants that will be fed upon by fish is just as much an agricultural process as allowing poultry to feed upon plants; hence, fish are just as truly a product of the land as are poultry or swine.

DISSENT BY JUSTICE MALCOLM This case is an illustration on how judges arrive at opposing conclusions given the same set of facts, laws and authorities. Decision on Reconsideration

Original Decision

FACTS

Fish food are of various kinds (some float on water, others are rooted, others are loosely attached to the ground)

Fish food consists of marine plants which grow from roots attached to the bottom of the pond

PURPOSE OF THE LAW

If Legislature intended to exempt all classes of domestic products (including fish), it would have done so in plain language

To encourage commercial development

Georgia SC: yield of the soil Alabama, Wisconsin SC: live stock AUTHORITIES ON THE TERM “AGRI PRODUCTS”

Pennsylvania SC: domestic animals and products of the farm Philippine SC: frogs, foxes, bees, pigeons, silkworms, silk, honey, fish (This decision cited countries wherein there are farms devoted to the production of said items)