Morrill v. Jones
| Citation | 106 U.S. 466,1 S.Ct. 423,27 L.Ed. 267 |
| Parties | MORRILL, Collector, etc., v. JONES |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1883 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Section 2505 of the Revised Statutes provides, among other things, that 'animals, alive, specially imported for breeding purposes from beyond the seas, shall be admitted free [of duty] upon proof thereof satisfactory to the secretary of the treasury, and under such regulations as he may prescribe.' Article 383 of the treasury customs regulations provides that before a collector admits such animals free he must, among other things, 'be satisfied that the animals are of superior stock, adapted to improving the breed in the United States.' Jones, the defendant in error, imported certain animals, which were entered at the port of Portland, Maine, and claimed that they should be admitted free, as they were 'specially imported for breeding purposes.' The collector, though the importation was for breeding purposes, demanded the duties because he was not satisfied the animals were of 'superior stock.' The duties were accordingly paid under protest and this suit was brought to recover back the amount so paid. On the trial the court instructed the jury 'that, under the statute, animals, whether of superior or inferior stock, if in fact imported specially for breeding purposes, are entitled to be admitted free of duty,' and 'that the law does not give to the secretary of the treasury power to prescribe in the regulations what classes of animals imported for breeding purposes shall be admitted free of duty.' To this instruction an exception was taken. The jury returned a verdict against the collector, upon which judgment was rendered. To reverse that judgment this writ of error was brought. The only error assigned on the exceptions actually taken at the trial relates to the instruction as to the effect of the treasury regulation.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. P. Mattocks, for defendant in error.
The secretary of the treasury cannot be his regulations alter or amend a revenue law. All he can do is to regulate the mode of proceeding to carry into effect what congress has enacted. In the present case we are entirely satisfied the regulation acted upon by the collector was in excess of the power of the secretary. The statute clearly includes animals of all classes. The regulations seek to confine its operation to animals of 'superior stock.' This is manifestly an attempt to put into the body of the statute a limitation which congress...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Clifford
...109 And see United States v. United Verde Copper Co., 196 U.S. 207, 215-216, 25 S. Ct. 222, 49 L.Ed. 449 (1905); Morrill v. Jones, 106 U.S. 466, 1 S.Ct. 423, 27 L.Ed. 267 (1883). 110 Compare 5 U.S.C. § 2282(a) (1) (forfeiture of annuity or retired pay); 24 U.S.C. § 50, quoted supra note 31 ......
-
Acker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...93, 97 L.Ed. 664. "The secretary of the treasury cannot by his regulations alter or amend a revenue law." Morrill v. Jones, 1882, 106 U.S. 466, 467, 1 S.Ct. 423, 424, 27 L.Ed. 267. Each of the petitions for rehearing is ...
-
Ace Property & Cas. Ins. Federal Crop Ins.
...maintain that FCIC was powerless to shorten the applicable statute of limitations.13 Pls.' Mot. at 12 (citing Morrill v. Jones, 106 U.S. 466, 1 S.Ct. 423, 27 L.Ed. 267 (1882) (holding that a regulation cannot alter or amend a law); Pedersen v. Benson, 255 F.2d 524, 529 (D.C.Cir.1958) (same)......
-
National Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker
...the Secretary of the Treasury cannot, by his regulations, alter or amend a revenue law. See, e.g., Morrill v. Jones, 16 Otto 466, 467, 106 U.S. 466, 467, 1 S.Ct. 423, 424, 27 L.Ed. 267 (1883); Czarnikow-Rionda Company v. United States, 60 CCPA 6, 9, C.A.D. 1071, 468 F.2d 211, 214 (1972). In......
-
Judicial Non-delegation, the Inherent-powers Corollary, and Federal Common Law
...the rule controlled); Clinton, supra note 216, at 73.218. See Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996).219. See Morrill v. Jones, 106 U.S. 466 (1882); Clinton, supra note 216, at 74.220. See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 421 (1998).221. See id.; see also Saikrishna Banga......