Stotesbury v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 November 1892 |
| Docket Number | No. 30,30 |
| Citation | 36 L.Ed. 940,146 U.S. 196,13 S.Ct. 1 |
| Parties | STOTESBURY et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Statement by Mr. Justice BREWER:
On December 19, 1870, the firm of Harris & Stotesbury appealed to the commissioner of internal revenue for the refunding of $67,335.85, internal revenue taxes claimed to have been erroneously assessed and collected from them. This claim was examined and rejected, and notice thereof given to the claimants. An application for a rehearing was made and sustained. On July 26, 1871, the commissioner, having examined the claim, signed and transmitted to the secretary of the treasury the following schedule:
"No. 99.—A schedule of claims for the refunding of taxes erroneously assessed and paid, which have been examined
and allowed, and are transmitted to the secretary of the treasury for his consideration and advisement in
accordance with regulations dated January 12, 1866.
District. Claimants. Amount. Disposition. Reason of Disposition.
section 75 of "An act to
provide internal
revenue," etc., approved
July 1, 1862. as amended
by the act approved
March 3, 1963.
"I hereby certify that the foregoing claims for the refunding of taxes erroneously assessed and paid have been
examined and allowed, and are transmitted to the secretary of the treasury for his consideration and advisement.
A. PLEASONTON, Commissioner."
On August 8, 1871, Commissioner Pleasonton resigned, and on the next day J. W. Douglass, having been duly appointed his successor, entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office. On that day the secretary of the treasury sent to him this letter:
'Treasury Department,
'Washington, D. C., August 9, 1871.
'Sir: The inclosed refunding claims of Harris & Stotesbury and Harris, Heyle & Co., transmitted by your predecessor to this office for approval, would seem to have been passed by a reversal of the construction of the law relative to sugar manufactures which obtained during the whole period of its existence.
'Secretary of the Treasury.
'Hon. J. W. Douglass, Com'r of Int. Revenue.'
And on the 9th of November, 1871, the commissioner indorsed on the claim these words: —notice of which action was duly given to the claimants. On the wrapper or jacket inclosing the papers in this claim appear the following indorsements:
'
Coll'r not'd Dec. 20, '70. J. D. 3395.
Wrote claimants Nov. 13, '71. J. D. 12, 21, '70.
(46) Claim for refunding taxes collected.
Serial No. 18. No. of draft, ___. $67,335.85.
Harris & Stotesbury, claimant——.
Post-office address, Philadelphia.
1 district of Penna.
Assessed upon sp. tax sugar refiners.
Basis of claim: Claims that they do not refine sugar.
Nov. 9, 1871, rejected on re-examination.
[Signed] J. W. DOUGLASS, Comm'r.
Examined and rejected Dec. 19, 1870, by——
[Signed] CHS. CHESLEY.
Allowed by commissioner, July 26, 1871.
No notice was given to the claimants of the action of Commissioner Pleasonton, and it does not appear that they were aware of it until 1880, when, on being informed thereof, they made application for the payment of the money as having been duly allowed them by such decision of Commissioner Pleasonton. This application was denied, but the question of the liability of the government was transmitted by the secretary of the treasury to the court of claims. A petition in that court was filed in the name of Thomas P. Stotesbury, sole surviving partner of Harris & Stotesbury, and afterwards, on his death, the suit was revived in the name of the present appellants, his executors. The decision was in favor of the government, (23 Ct. Cl. 285,) from which decision the executors brought this appeal.
Enoch Totten and Thomas W. Neill, for appellants.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Cotton, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The court of claims decided that the action of Commissioner Pleasonton did not constitute a final award binding the government; and whether it was so or not is the question presented to us for decision.
The law under which the commissioner acted is found in section 3220, Rev. St.: 'The commissioner of internal revenue, subject to regulations prescribed by the secretary of the treasury, is authorized, on appeal to him made, to remit, fefund, and pay back all taxes erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, all penalties collected without authority, and all taxes that appear to be unjustly assessed, or excessive in amount, or in any manner wrongfully collected.' Regulations were prescribed by the secretary of the treasury, the only ones of importance in this case being the 3d, 4th, 5th, and 7th, as follows:
'(3) When the appeal has been fully heard and examined, the commissioner of internal revenue must put into the case a certificate of his decision or judgment, with the amount in writing which should be paid back.
'(4) A proper book or docket must be carefully kept in the office of the commissioner of internal revenue, in which should be entered, under its proper date, the name of the claimant, with the amount of the tax which is the subject of appeal, and the final decision of the said commissioner.
'(5) When, from time to the, and as the commissioner of internal revenue in the course of his public duties shall complete his examination and give his judgment on these appeal cases, he will transmit a weekly list of them to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hyams
... ... Bates & Guild Company v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 24 ... Sup.Ct. 595, 48 L.Ed. 894, contain sufficient general ... discussions of the varying phases under different statutes ... The United States rely especially on United States v ... Kaufman, 96 U.S. 567, 24 L.Ed. 792, and Stotesbury ... v. United States, 146 U.S. 196, 13 Sup.Ct. 1, 36 L.Ed ... 940; but there was enough in the phraseology of the statutes ... there involved to show that a condition precedent to recovery ... by the claimants in each case was a favorable judgment of ... some executive officer named. On the ... ...
-
American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty
...102 F. 565 AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING v. McANNULTY. United States Circuit Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division.June 14, 1900 ... Harkless, ... such powers. Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. 347, 19 ... L.Ed. 62; Stotesbury v. U.S. 146 U.S. 196, 13 ... Sup.Ct. 1, 36 L.Ed. 940; Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 ... Wall. 475, 18 ... ...
-
City of New Orleans v. Paine
...judgment, while the matter is properly before him for action.' The case under consideration is not unlike that of Stotesbury v. U. S., 146 U. S. 196, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, (decided at the present term,) in which a decision by the commissioner of internal revenue, authorizing the refunding of ......