Lincoln Mills of Alabama v. Davis, 4570
| Decision Date | 06 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 4570,4607,4595,4608.,4570 |
| Citation | 15 F. Supp. 257 |
| Parties | LINCOLN MILLS OF ALABAMA v. DAVIS, and three other cases. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Coleman, Spain, Stewart & Davies, of Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs Lincoln Mills of Alabama.
Sutherland, Tuttle & Brennan, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs Anniston Mfg. Co.
Sizer, Chambliss & Kefauver, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiffs Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Co. and Sanquoit Spinning Mills.
Jim C. Smith, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Birmingham, Ala., for defendant.
These are suits by plaintiffs against Harwell G. Davis, as collector of internal revenue and individually, to recover floor and processing taxes collected from them under the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq.). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction upon the ground, among others, that there was no averment that the plaintiffs had complied with section 21 (d) of the amendment of August 24, 1935, to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 623 (d). Being of the opinion that the same question could be reached by demurrer, I overruled the motion. The defendant demurred upon the same grounds.
Section 21 (d) of said act was repealed by the Revenue Act of 1936 (section 901 7 U.S.C.A. § 623). The defendant amended his demurrer by adding the ground that it is not alleged that plaintiffs have complied with section 902 of the 1936 Revenue Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 644). This section conditions plaintiffs' right of recovery upon their establishing that they have borne the burden of the tax and have in no way shifted the burden to others.
These are suits in the nature of an action for money had and received. The plaintiffs cannot recover until they show that the defendant has money in his possession which, in morals, equity, and good conscience belongs to them. Where plaintiffs sell a shirt, the purchaser pays the tax to them, and they pass it on to the government, certainly, there is no moral right in them to recover this tax.
Plaintiffs, however, contend that before section 21 (d) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act and sections 902, 906, and 907 of the Revenue Act of 1936 (7 U.S. C.A. §§ 644, 648, 649), were enacted they had a vested right; that these sections placed an impossible burden on them and deprived them of this right; and that said sections are unconstitutional. In my opinion, all of these questions were decided adversely to plaintiffs in the case of United States v. Jefferson Electric Manufacturing Company, 291 U.S. 386, 54 S.Ct. 443, 449, 78 L.Ed. 859.
The electric company manufactured and sold in the open market ignition coils. The plaintiffs manufactured and sold in the open market cotton goods. The electric company bought in the open market iron, copper, coal, and other things used in the manufacture of the coils. The plaintiffs bought in the open market...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anniston Mfg Co v. Davis
...amended its complaint, asserting the unconstitutionality of these provisions. Demurrer was sustained by the District Court (Lincoln Mills v. Davis, 15 F.Supp. 257) and its judgment of dismissal was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals upon the ground that the court below was without jur......
-
Edwin Cigar Co. v. Higgins
...that title 7 of the Revenue Act of 1936 has been held to be constitutional by the United States District Court in Alabama, in Lincoln Mills v. Davis, 15 F.Supp. 257 (see Prentice Hall Fed. Tax Service, 1936, par. 35824), affirmed (C.C.A. 5) 87 F.(2d) 773, and by the District Court of Massac......
-
Butler v. Carney
...suits. The same result has been reached in a similar case, although on a somewhat different line of reasoning, in Lincoln Mills v. Davis, 15 F.Supp. 257 (D.C.N.D.Ala.). The statute does not operate to extinguish vested rights of the plaintiffs. These rights persist, even though the United S......