Hart v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 479,95 U.S. 316 |
| Parties | HART v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.
This suit was brought by the United States, May 29, 1872, against Hosmer, Hart, and Stahl, on a distiller's bond, executed by them May 29, 1871, in the sum of $5,000, and conditioned to be void if said Hosmer should faithfully comply with all the provisions of law relating to the duties and business of distillers, and pay all penalties incurred or fines imposed on him for a violation of any of said provisions, and should not suffer the tract or lot of land on which the distillery stood, or any part thereof, to be incumbered by mortgage, judgment, or other lien during the time in which he should carry on said business.
The breach alleged was the non-payment by said Hosmer of $3,000, demanded of him, being the amount of tax on six thousand gallons of spirits, which he had distilled after the first day of June, 1871. He made no defence. The other defendants filed three pleas: 1. That the bond was never delivered to the plaintiff; that the assessor had no authority of law to approve it; and that neither the collector nor any other officer of the plaintiff had authority to receive it. 2. That the bond was a common distiller's bond, and that they signed it merely as sureties for Hosmer, without consideration, and for his accommodation; that, six days before its execution, Hosmer, without their knowledge, incumbered the ground upon which the distillery stood, by his mortgage of the same to one Dempsey, which was duly recorded May 25, 1871; that the plaintiff did not require, nor did Hosmer file with the assessor, the written consent of Dempsey that the lien of the United States for taxes and penalties should have priority to the mortgage, and that the title should, in case of forfeiture, vest in the United States, discharged of said mortgage; nor was Hosmer required to, nor did he, execute an indemnity bond against said mortgage, as required by the act of Congress approved April 10, 1869, but that the bond sued on was approved without the filing of such consent or the taking of such indemnity bond; that, by reason of the non-payment by Hosmer of the taxes on distilled spirits which were chargeable, and a lien upon said ground, a part of it was distrained and sold for $6,100, which sum, if the amount of Dempsey's mortgage had not been deducted therefrom, would have been sufficient to pay Hosmer's indebtedness to the United States. 3. That the taxes charged and sued for were assessed against Hosmer on spirits he had distilled, and were a first and paramount lien thereon; but that the collector of internal revenue for the district, without the knowledge or assent of the defendants, and without first requiring the payment of the taxes thereon, permitted him to remove from the bonded warehouse a quantity of said spirits,—more than sufficient to pay any just claim of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc
...1099 (1921); Pine River Logging Co. v. United States, 186 U.S. 279, 291, 22 S.Ct. 920, 925, 46 L.Ed. 1164 (1902); Hart v. United States, 95 U.S. 316, 24 L.Ed. 479 (1877). See also Automobile Club v. Commissioner, 353 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 707, 1 L.Ed.2d 746 17 "Whatever the form in which the G......
-
In Re: Rehear
...... certain public duties to perform by reason of the deposit. ( Illinois Surety Co. v. United States, 226 F. 665,. 141 C. C. A. 421.). . . "It. follows that the relation ... complied with.' ( Rose v. Douglass Township, 52. Kan. 451, 39 Am. St. 354, 34 P. 1046; Hart v. United. States, 95 U.S. 316, 24 L.Ed. 479; Board of County. Commrs. v. Security Bank, 75 ......
-
City Of Raleigh v. Mech.S & Farmers Bank
...of the principle "the Government is not responsible for the laches or wrongful acts of its officers", Waite. C. J., in Hart v. United States, 95 U.S. 316, 24 L.Ed. 479, and "the State is not ordinarily estopped by acts of misfeasance on the part of its officers". Winslow, C. J., in State v.......
-
Portmann v. U.S.
...was estopped on account of representations by its officers.2 K. Davis, supra note 6, § 17.01 at 492 (quoting Hart v. United States, 95 U.S. 316, 318, 24 L.Ed. 479 (1877)).8 Pursuant to this rationale, many courts have explained their refusal to allow estoppel against the government by under......