Opinion ID: 1829624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Limestone Decision

Text: The only case to come before this Court construing the statute and rule in question is Lambert v. Mississippi Limestone Corporation, 405 So.2d 131 (Miss. 1981). The Limestone Corporation, based on a written agreement, furnished to MisCoa a storage facility and certain handling services. The Limestone decision recognized at the outset that Rule 67 did not define the word public but explained what constituted the operation of a storage warehouse. After strictly construing the statute and Rule 67, we reached the conclusion that Limestone was not operating a public warehouse. 405 So.2d at 132. This Court held that Limestone was not operating a public warehouse because: (1) Limestone's storage facility was built for the primary purpose of entering into an exclusive 5 year storage contract with MisCoa. (2) MisCoa agreed to pay Limestone an annual rental fee of $3.00 per ton for 15,000 tons storage. (3) The annual rental fee remained the same regardless of the amount of fertilizer stored. (4) MisCoa could terminate the exclusive rental agreement if Limestone stored the products of others. We concluded Limestone was not a public warehouseman subject to state sales taxation because Limestone was leasing the facility exclusively to MisCoa, the fee was a fixed annual payment which did not vary based upon the amount of personalty stored, and MisCoa could terminate the contract for third party storage. Limestone, nevertheless, was still operating a storage warehouse. It simply was not operating a public storage warehouse.