Smietanka v. Indiana Steel Co
| Citation | 257 U.S. 1,42 S.Ct. 1,66 L.Ed. 99 |
| Decision Date | 24 October 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 214,214 |
| Parties | SMIETANKA, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. INDIANA STEEL CO |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
William Beye, of Chicago, Ill., for Indiana Steel Co.
[Argument of Counsel from 2 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit brought to recover internal revenue special excise taxes for the years 1910 and 1912, assessed under the Act of Congress of August 5, 1909, c. 6, § 38, 36 Stat. 11, 112, and paid by the plaintiff, the defendant in error, under duress. The taxes were collected by S. M. Fitch, then collector of internal revenue, and it was certified by the District Court as part of its judgment that there was probable cause for the act of the collector, that he acted under the direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and that the amounts recovered should be provided for and paid out of the proper appropriation from the Treasury of the United States. The defendant is the present collector for what was Fitch's district and was held liable by this judgment. The case was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals which has certified the following questions:
'1. Assuming that the declaration states a good cause of action had the suit been brought against S. M. Fitch, the internal revenue collector who actually collected and received the taxes, does it state any cause of action whatever against said S. M. Fitch's successor in office, the plaintiff in error, against whom the suit was brought, but who had no participation in the collection, receipt or disbursement of such taxes? '2. May suit in the District Court of the United States
properly be brought and maintained against a United States collector of internal revenue for the recovery of the amount of a United States internal revenue tax, unlawfully assessed and collected, but in the collection and disbursement of which such collector had no agency, the entire transaction of such assessment, collection and disbursement having occurred during the incumbency of such office of a predecessor in office of such collector?'
As the law stood before later statutes a collector was liable personally for duties mistakenly collected, if the person charged gave notice, at the time, of his intention to sue, and warning not to pay over the amount to the Treasury. Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137, 9 L. Ed. 373. But after an Act of Congress had required collectors to pay over such monies, it was held, against the dissent of Mr. Justice Story, that the personal liability was gone. Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 11 L. Ed. 576. Later statutes however recognize suits against collectors in such cases, and the plaintiff contends that they should be construed to create a new statutory liability attached to the office and passing to successors, as was held in this case, the formal defendant being saved from harm by the United States. This however is not the language of the statutes and hardly can be reconciled with the decision of this Court in Sage v. United States, 250 U. S. 33, 39 Sup. Ct. 415, 63 L. Ed. 828, and other cases to which we shall refer.
To show that the action still is personal, as laid down in Sage v. United States, 250 U. S. 33, 37, 39 Sup. Ct. 415, 63 L. Ed. 828, it would seem to be enough to observe that when the suit is begun it cannot be known with certainty that the judgment will be paid out of the Treasury. That depends upon the certificate of the Court in the case. It is not to be supposed that a stranger to an unwarranted transaction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. United States
...gone. Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 11 L.Ed. 576. Later statutes reinstated the action against collectors. Smietanka v. Indiana Steel Company, 257 U.S. 1, 4, 42 S.Ct. 1, 66 L.Ed. 99. The history of this legislation is further summarized in Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose, 289 U.S. 373, 380, 53 S.......
-
Hammond-Knowlton v. United States
...finds that there was probable cause, will the certificate be issued. This thesis was explained in Smietanka v. Indiana Steel Co., 257 U.S. 1, 42 S.Ct. 1, 2, 66 L.Ed. 99, 1921; there the tax had been collected by Collector Fitch, but suit for recovery was brought against his successor, Smiet......
-
Flora v. United States
...the Court of Claims. But, the right of suit against the Collector was impaired in 1921 by the decision in Smietanka v. Indiana Steel Co., 1921, 257 U.S. 1, 42 S.Ct. 1, 66 L.Ed. 99. It held that such actions against the Collector were personal in character and not maintainable against his su......
-
Wyodak Res. Dev. Corp.. v. U.S.
...(1867). Because such actions were technically personal suits, sovereign immunity was not implicated. See Smietanka v. Ind. Steel Co., 257 U.S. 1, 4, 42 S.Ct. 1, 66 L.Ed. 99 (1921). Commentators called “[t]he suit against the collector for a refund ... a most anomalous action,” Plumb, supra,......