McFarland v. Hurley
| Decision Date | 23 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3860. |
| Citation | 286 F. 365 |
| Parties | McFARLAND, State Supervisor of Public Accounts, et al. v. HURLEY et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
W. M Phillips, of Shreveport, La. (T. W. Nettles, of Coushatta La., F. S. Craig, of Mansfield, La., and E. C. McClendon, of Homer, La., on the brief), for appellants.
A. B Freyer, of Shreveport, La. (Wise, Randolph, Rendall & Freyer of Shreveport, La., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
The Gilliland Oil Company was engaged in raising and severing oil in the state of Louisiana, and was so engaged in the months of April, May, and June, 1921. In July, 1921, said company was placed in the hands of P. J. Hurley, A. J. Satterwaite, and George O. Baird, as receivers, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in the suit of Liberty Central Trust Co. v. Gilliland Oil Co., 279 F. 432.
The state of Louisiana enacted in the year 1920 an act known as the 'Severance License Tax Law' (Act No. 31 of 1920), which required each company raising natural resources in Louisiana from land in said state to report every three months the quantity and value of said natural resources severed in said preceding three months and to pay a license of 2 per cent. of such value for the privilege and right to raise said resources from said lands in said state.
On July 1st, said Oil Company became obligated to pay by August 1, 1921, said 2 per cent. of the value of said product of April, May, and June, and, on default, the same carried 2 per cent. per month interest, besides 10 per cent. attorney's fees. The receivers refused to pay the said tax, interest, or attorney's fees, and further refused to make any returns or pay any taxes for subsequent months, although they were continuing the business of raising oil from said soil.
A rule was brought by W. N. McFarland, as supervisor of public accounts for the state of Louisiana, and J. W. Coleman, as sheriff and ex officio tax collector of Claiborne parish, La. (herein styled plaintiffs), against said receivers, requiring them to make said returns and pay said taxes, penalties, and attorney's fees.
The receivers defended on the ground that the statute did not require receivers of a court (especially a federal court), severing natural resources to pay any severance license tax, and especially that they were not chargeable with interest and attorney's fees.
The District Court ordered them to return and pay said taxes, but held they were not liable for interest and attorney's fees, when the delay had been produced by the settlement of the legal question, raised in good faith by the receivers, of their liability for such tax. The taxes, without interest or attorney's fees, have been paid by the receivers to the plaintiffs, and this appeal is by plaintiffs from so much of said decree as denied to them interest and attorney's fees. No cross-appeal has been taken from the decree awarding the taxes.
The receivers have moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the plaintiffs have been paid and have received the principal sum of the taxes decreed to be paid to them. It is claimed that this payment and receipt estops plaintiffs from seeking to reverse so much of the decree as denied them interest and attorney's fees. We do not think that this position is sound, or that the receipt of the taxes adjudged against the receivers will prevent the further prosecution of an appeal taken to reverse a decree denying interest and attorney's fees claimed thereon.
Here was a tax which plaintiffs claimed, and which the court had ordered its receivers to pay. It therefore stood adjudged that they owed this much of the plaintiffs' demand. The parties were at issue as to interest and attorney's fees. There is no claim that any receipt in full of all claims for taxes, interest, and attorney's fees was asked or given or that the receivers paid said admitted sums on any belief that they were thereby discharging all that plaintiffs claimed. The receivers had a right to pay said admitted sum to stop interest, and it was plaintiffs' duty to accept such partial payment. Sibley v. Currie, 137 La. 713, 69 So. 148; Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Ry. v. Aucoin, 140 La. 768, 73 So. 859; Liquidating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gully v. First Nat. Bank In Meridian
... ... 66; ... Leavenworth v. Hunter, 150 Miss. 245, 116 So. 593; ... First National Bank v. Anderson, 269 U.S. 341, 70 ... L.Ed. 245; McFarland v. Central Natl. Bank, 26 F.2d ... 890; Boise City Natl. Bank v. Ada County, 37 F.2d ... 947; State ex rel. Wyatt v. Cantley, 26 S.W.2d 976; ... receive payment in full of their claim ... Marshall ... v. New York, 254 U.S. 380, 65 L.Ed. 315; McFarland v ... Hurley, 286 F. 365; First National Bank v ... Ewing, 103 F. 168, 179 U.S. 686, 45 L.Ed. 386; Union ... Trust Co. v. Great Eastern Lbr. Co., 248 F ... ...
-
State v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
...nonpayment, to be continued during the time of its non-payment -- compensation, not punishment." (Italics ours.) In the case of McFarland v. Hurley, 286 F. 365, decided the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in 1923, the court held that the tax debtor was not relieved of......
-
International Shoe Co. v. Picard & Geismar
...herein is held. For previous jurisprudence supporting liability, before the Act of Congress of June 18, 1934, see McFarland v. Hurley et al., 5 Cir., 286 F. 365. The case cited contra by the attorney for the receiver, McCormick, Tax Collector, v. Puritan Coal Mining Co., 3 Cir., 41 F.2d 213......
-
Board of Com'rs of Sweetwater County, Wyo. v. Bernardin
...v. Keech (C. C. A. 4) 239 F. 48, 51, 52, L. R. A. 1917D, 1152; Central Trust Co. v. Condon (C. C. A. 6) 67 F. 84, 98; McFarland v. Hurley (C. C. A. 5) 286 F. 365, 367; Bright v. State of Arkansas (C. C. A. 8) 249 F. 953; American I. & S. Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., supra; Central Nat. Ban......