Swift Company v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 26 L.Ed. 1108,105 U.S. 691 |
| Parties | SWIFT COMPANY v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. George H. Williams for the appellant.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
The Swift and Courtney and Beecher Company filed its petition Jan. 20, 1879, in the Court of Claims, for the recovery of certain commissions alleged to be due to it on purchases of proprietary stamps under the internal revenue laws.
It alleged that it was, during the period covered by the transactions set out, the proprietor, manufacturer, and vendor of friction-matches; that, as such, at the beginning of its business, it furnished to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue its own die for stamps, to be used especially for its own proprietary articles; that, during said period, from time to time, and continuously on different days of each and every month, it sent to him sums of money from $1,000 to $10,000 as suited its convenience, and that he transmitted to it stamps, as it needed and ordered; so that in the account between it and him as to its stamps the creditor side showed moneys received by him in certain sums and at certain dates, but showed the receipt of no sum less than $1,000, and the debtor side of said account showed that stamps were sent by him to it in different sums and at different dates, but never in amounts less than $1,000.
It is further averred that upon the whole amount of stamps purchased, during the period referred to, the company was entitled to a commission of ten per cent in money, amounting to $389,720.40, which he has refused to allow; and has allowed in lieu thereof $354,291.27 in stamps at their face value; insisting such to be the long-established practice of the office, to which he must adhere, till changed by legislation or judicial decision. The company, in the petition, in reference to this practice, avers 'that the allowances made to it from time to time between May 6, 1870, and Dec. 24, 1878, have been in accordance with the uniform practice of said internal revenue office from its organization, but petitioner avers that at different times prior to 1866 protests were made to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue by and on behalf of the manufacturers of friction-matches against such a construction of the statute by him, by which only ten per cent commissions in stamps at their face value were allowed by him upon the amount of money paid by the purchasers, instead of ten per cent upon the whole amount of stamps purchased, and that such facts are and have always been known to petitioner.'
It is also averred that the company gave the required security for a credit of sixty days upon its purchase of stamps, as provided for in the act of June 30, 1864, c. 173 (13 Stat. 218, 295), which enacts, 'That the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may from time to time furnish, supply, and deliver to any manufacturer of friction or other matches, cigar lights, or wax tapers, a suitable quantity of adhesive or other stamps, such as may be prescribed for use in such cases, without pre-payment therefor, on a crei t not exceeding sixty days, requiring in advance such security as may be judged necessary to secure payment therefor, to the Treasurer of the United States within the time prescribed for such payment.'
The defendant filed a general demurrer, which was sustained, and judgment rendered dismissing the petition. To review this judgment the present appeal is prosecuted by the company.
Section 102 of the act of July 1, 1862, c. 119 (12 Stat. 477), authorized the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to sell to and supply collectors, deputy collectors, postmasters, stationers, or any other persons, at his discretion, with adhesive stamps, upon the payment at the time of delivery of the amount of duties said stamps represent, and thereupon to allow and deduct from the aggregate amount of such stamps the sum of not exceeding five per cent as commission, with the proviso, 'that any proprietor or proprietors of articles named in schedule C, who shall furnish his or their own die or design for stamps, to be used especially for his or their own proprietary articles, shall be allowed the following discount, namely: on amounts purchased at one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank Fairbank v. United States
...several justices announcing the opinions in these cases is not the same, the thought is alike. Thus, in Swift & C. & B. Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 691, 695, 26 L. ed. 1108, 1109, Mr. Justice Matthews 'The rule which gives determining weight to contemporaneous construction put upon a st......
-
People v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co.
...it aid. The cases to this effect are numerous. Edwards' Lessee v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206;United States v. Temple, 105 U. S. 97;Swift Co. v. United States 105 U. S. 691;Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526.’' To the same effect are Whittemore v. People, 227 Ill. 453, 81 N. E. 427,10 Ann. Cas. 44......
-
Mesa Verde Const. Co. v. Northern California Dist. Council of Laborers
...is clear. United States v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 278 U.S. 269, 280, 49 S.Ct. 133, 137, 73 L.Ed. 322 (1929); Swift Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 691, 695, 26 L.Ed. 1108 (1881); United States v. Tanner, 147 U.S. 661, 663, 13 S.Ct. 436, 437, 37 L.Ed. 321 (1893). When the statutory language......
-
Swallows Holding, Ltd. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...S.Ct. 133, 73 L.Ed. 322 (1929); United States v. Tanner, 147 U.S. 661, 663, 13 S.Ct. 436, 37 L.Ed. 321 (1893); Swift Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 691, 695, 26 L.Ed. 1108 (1881); see also Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 523 U.S. 382, 387, 118 S.Ct. 1413, 140 L.Ed.2d 542 (1998). Deferen......