The People of the State of New York ex rel. Non-Antem Sulphite Digester Company, Relator, v. Erastus C. Knight, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Non-Antem Sulphite Digester Company, Relator, v. Erastus C. Knight, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent. Taxation—a eorporation manufacturing linings for wood pulp digesters is exempt. A corporation, whose sole business is that of manufacturing, under a patent process, linings composed of lead, brick and cement for use in wood pulp. digesters, is a manufacturing corporation within the meaning of section 183 of the Tax Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 908), exempting such a corporation from taxation. Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 29th day of March, 1901, commanding the defendant to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the county of Albany the accounts and evidence and all proceedings had in relation to the determination of the Comptroller of the State of New York in assessing a franchise tax against the relator for the year ending ■October 31, 1899. The relator’s sole business is that of manufacturing a lining for wood pulp digesters. A wood pulp digester is a large boiler varying from ten to thirty feet in diameter and from, sixteen to thirty^ five feet in height. This is in effect a steel shell in which the wood pulp is boiled. It is necessary to line this shell in order to prevent the action of the acid upon it. This lining is manufactured by .the ' defendant under a patent which has been issued .to one Eugene Meurer. The capital stock of the company consists of this patent, which is claimed to be of the value of $90,000, and of $10,000 in cash. This lining is composed of lead, brick and cement. Further facts appear in the opinion. John B. Gleason, for the relator. John C. Davies, Attorney-General, and Henry B. Coman, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Smith, J.:] Smith, J.: The exact construction of this lining, which is claimed to be a process of manufacture, is not made- clear. It is fairly inferable, however, from the evidence that the relator manufactures a lead boiler, which is placed inside the steel digester and acts as a lining thereto. Just how that is protected or supported, by. the brick and mortar does not appear, nor do I deem it material. A company formed to manufacture lead boilers would be a manufacturing company. Why less a manufacturing company if the boilers be used as linings to pulp digesters ? The character- of the business is the saíne whether these be manufactured in a separate manufactory and shipped, or whether they be manufactured upon the ground where they are used. This manufacture is not an incident to other business. It is the main or sole business of this company. In 6ur judgment the relator comes clearly within the exemption of section 183 of the Tax Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 908), as a manufacturing cor .poration employing all its capital in this State “ in manufacturing and in the sale of the product of such manufacturing.” Wé think the determination of' the Comptroller should be reversed. Parker, P. J., Edwards, Chase and Houghton, JJ., concurred. ' Determination of the Comptroller reversed, with fifty dollars. costs and disbursements.