Clay Pierce v. United States No 64 United States v. Clay Pierce No 623
| Decision Date | 24 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 64 and 623,s. 64 and 623 |
| Citation | 34 S.Ct. 427,232 U.S. 290,58 L.Ed. 609 |
| Parties | H. CLAY PIERCE, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES. NO 64. UNITED STATES v. H. CLAY PIERCE. NO 623 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. William D. Guthrie for H. Clay Pierce.
Assistant Attorney General Adkins and Mr. Karl W. Kirchwey for the United States
These two cases involve the liability of the plaintiff in error in No. 64 for a tax on the foreign-built yacht Yacona, which became due on the 1st of September, 1909. The complaint in every substantial particular was identical with that filed in the Billings Case this day decided [232 U. S. 261, 58 L. ed. ——, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421], and this is true also of the defenses set up in the answer, except that the answer in this case contained this distinct averment which was not in the Billings Case: 'That the said yacht Yacona was not in use by the defendant or by any other person at any time during the year next preceding the 1st day of September, 1909, but was out of commission of September, 1909, but was out of commission in the state of New York, throughout the whole of such year.' The case was submitted on bill and answer, and the liability for the tax, which was upheld by the court below, was rested upon the construction as to potential use,—that is, a tax on the privilege of using,—which we decided in the Billings Case to be unsound. In this case, as in that, the certificate is concerned with a writ of error prosecuted by the United States to the circuit court of appeals because of the rejection of a prayer for interest. Treating both the cases in this instance as one, as we did in the previous cases, and applying to this the construction which we have given the statute in those cases, it follows that the judgment below was wrong and must be reversed, with direction to dismiss the complaint.
And it is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bromley v. Caughn
...is owner, regardless of the use of disposition made of his property. See Billings v. United States, supra; cf. Pierce v. United States, 232 U. S. 290, 34 S. Ct. 427, 58 L. Ed. 609. The persistence of this distinction and the justification for it rest upon the historic fact that taxes of thi......
-
U.S. v. Munoz-Flores
...(No. 15,464); United States v. Billings, 190 F. 359 (S.D.N.Y.1911), rev'd on other grounds sub. nom., Pierce v. United States, 232 U.S. 290, 34 S.Ct. 427, 58 L.Ed. 609 (1914); Bertelsen v. White, 65 F.2d 719 (1st Cir.1933); Mulroy v. Block, 569 F.Supp. 256 (N.D.N.Y.1983), aff'd, 736 F.2d 56......
-
Mahler v. Tremper, 31898
...is owner, regardless of the use or disposition made of his property. See Billings v. United States, supra; cf. Pierce v. United States, 232 U.S. 290, 34 S.Ct. 427, 58 L.Ed. 609. * * "The power to give cannot be said to be a more important incident of property than the power to use, the exer......
-
Morrow v. Henneford
... ... defined by the Supreme Court of the United States to be an ... inland imposition, ... United ... States, supra; cf. Pierce v. United States, 232 U.S ... 290, 34 ... ...