Court Opinion

ID: 9563970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:51:22.482089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:09.740149
License: Public Domain

*501Schwellenbach, J.
(dissenting) — In the Drury case, cited by the majority, the tailor cut and fabricated cloth from his own stock, in accordance with measurements taken. He manufactured suits.
In the Dunbar case, poisonous substances were removed from nonpotable whiskey. Although there could be a difference of opinion as to whether or not the product was still “poison,” the process made it salable. The process constituted manufacturing as defined by the statute.
In the Wilder case, the prefabricated beams used in the construction of the snowsheds were manufactured.
I fail to see how the process of freezing fresh fruits and vegetables results in the production of “a new, different or useful article of tangible personal property or substance of trade or commerce.” It was not so recognized by the tax commission until it revised its rule No. 136 on March 1, 1954. Although the obtaining of additional revenue is very laudable, I do not believe that the tax commission should be permitted to amend a statute enacted by the legislature by changing one of its rules.
Weaver, J., concurs with Schwellenbach, J.