Sterling Cider Co. v. Casey
| Decision Date | 10 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 2009. |
| Citation | 285 F. 885 |
| Parties | STERLING CIDER CO. v. CASEY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
At Law. Action by the Sterling Cider Company against Andrew J. Casey. Judgment for plaintiff.
Joseph F. O'Connell, of Boston, Mass., and William W. Armstrong of Rochester, N. Y., for plaintiff.
Robert O. Harris, U.S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., and Frederic S Harvey, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Lowell, Mass., for defendant.
The principal question is whether sweet cider is taxable as a 'soft drink' under Revenue Act of 1918, Sec. 628a (40 Stat. 1116 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 6161 1/2d)) which, with the corresponding section of the act of 1917 (40 Stat. 312), is copied in the margin. [1] The term 'soft drinks' is, I believe, of comparatively recent origin. It probably came into use as beverages composed of carbonated water or still water and fruit syrups became commonly sold, and was used to distinguish such prepared beverages from those which were of alcoholic character. It connotes compounding or manufacture. Cider has been known for centuries. It means, when used without qualification, the pressed-out juice of apples. It was a common beverage long before anybody ever heard of 'soft drinks.' It is a thing sui generis; I do not think that it would ever be referred to in common speech as a 'soft drink.' If the expression 'other soft drinks' does not bring under the tax every nonalcoholic beverage-- which the government does not contend-- I do not think that it should be held to include such a well-known and distinctive thing as cider. This conclusion is, I think, somewhat strengthened by the fact that 'unfermented grape juice' is specifically mentioned. With the reasons which led Congress to tax that, and not to tax cider, we have nothing to do. The word 'other' refers, it seems to me, to manufactured or compounded beverages like those which are mentioned just before it, and which are customarily sold in closed bottles. See Warren v. Peabody, 8 C.B. 80, S.C., 19 L.J.C.P. 43.
The exact question before me was very carefully considered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and decided adversely to the government's contention. Monroe Cider Vinegar Co. v. Riordan, 280 F. 624. That decision carries great weight and should be followed, unless demonstrably erroneous, which, for the reasons indicated, seems to me not to be the case.
Judgment for the plaintiff....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Phez Co.
...the leading case of Monroe Cider Vinegar & Fruit Co. v. Riordan (C. C. A.) 280 F. 624, a decision which was followed in Sterling Cider Co. v. Casey (D. C.) 285 F. 885, and Casey v. Sterling Cider Co. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 426. In the Monroe Cider Case it was said: "As is well known, there are h......
- In re United States Leatheroid & Rubber Co.
-
Sterling Cider Co. v. Hassett, 3794.
...that earlier legislation, specifically the tariff acts,3 classified cider separately from wine. Appellant cites Sterling Cider Co. v. Casey, D.C. 1923, 285 F. 885, 886 and Tower & Sons v. United States, 1921, 11 Cust.App. 157 in support of its position. In Sterling Cider Co. v. Casey, supra......