Sancho v. Valiente & Co., 3228.
Decision Date | 08 December 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 3228.,3228. |
Parties | SANCHO, Treasurer, v. VALIENTE & CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Col. William C. Rigby, of Washington, D. C. (B. Fernandez Garcia, of San Juan, P. R., and Nathan R. Margold, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Edelmiro Martinez Rivera, of San Juan, P. R., for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico affirming a judgment of the District Court of San Juan.
The plaintiff, a mercantile firm established under the laws of Puerto Rico, brought an action at law against the Treasurer for a refund of taxes in the sum of $88.14, paid under protest, together with interest and costs. In its amended complaint the plaintiff alleged, as its first and only cause of action, that the taxes in question, on 35,256 pounds of leaf tobacco grown on the plaintiff's farm, were levied under Joint Resolution No. 13 of the Legislature of Puerto Rico, approved July 8, 1929, which imposed a tax of one-fourth of a cent a pound on all tobacco harvested in Puerto Rico; that the taxes were paid under protest; and that the plaintiff sought their refund because it claimed that the resolution under which the taxes were imposed was invalid.
The plaintiff set out seventeen different grounds wherein it alleged that Joint Resolution No. 13 was invalid, but the one upon which the District Court and the Supreme Court, in rendering judgment for the plaintiff, based their decisions was the seventh, which reads:
The defendant's answer asserted the validity of the Joint Resolution and of the taxes.
The District Court held that the Resolution was invalid as a law and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court and the defendant appealed to this court. The basis of the decision of the Supreme Court was that, inasmuch as section 34 of the Organic Act of 1917, 48 U.S.C.A. § 824, provided that "No law shall be passed except by bill" and the tax was imposed by a joint resolution, the alleged law was unconstitutional and void.
The appellant contends that the only question now before us for decision is the seventh ground of invalidity above set forth. The appellee, however, contends that it is open to it to rely upon all or any of the grounds of invalidity alleged in the complaint, although only the seventh was passed upon by the Supreme Court. We think the appellee is correct in its position, but, owing to the view we take of the case, we shall consider only the question whether Joint Resolution No. 13 is a valid law within the provisions of section 34 of the Organic Act of 1917, 48 U.S.C.A. §§ 822-841, 843, 844.
The portion of the Joint Resolution imposing the tax is section 2, which reads as follows:
The material portions of section 34 of the Organic Act, 39 Stat. 960, 48 U.S.C.A. §§ 822-825, 827, 828, 831-834, 837, 839, provide:
(Italics supplied except as to the provisos.)
It has been said that section 34 is poorly drawn and that any possible doubt as to whether a law of Puerto Rico could be passed by a joint resolution as well as by a bill could have been avoided by a little care in the phraseology of the draft. But if the intention of Congress with relation to the matter is to be ascertained from the specific assertion in section 34, 48 U.S.C.A. § 824, that "no law shall be passed except by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miranda v. People of Puerto Rico
...that Joint Resolution No. 59 was not to become effective until it was ratified by Congress (48 Stat. 1017), (and see Sancho v. Valiente & Company, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 327, decided by this court on December 8, 1937, and Sancho, Treasurer, v. Acevedo, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 331), it is obvious that it h......
-
Scudder v. Smith
... ... * * *" To a like effect was a statement by Circuit Judge Bingham in Sancho v. Valiente & Co., 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 327, 329: "The appellant, however, ... ...
-
Sancho v. Acevedo
...joint resolution. The question raised is the same as the one decided by this court on December 8, 1937, in the case of Sancho v. Valiente & Company, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 327, where it was held that, under section 34 of the Organic Act of Puerto Rico of 1917, 48 U.S.C.A. §§ 822-841, 843, 844, no ......