United States v. Ulrici

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWOODS
Citation4 S.Ct. 288,111 U.S. 38,28 L.Ed. 344
Decision Date17 March 1884
PartiesUNITED STATES v. ULRICI and others

111 U.S. 38
4 S.Ct. 288
28 L.Ed. 344
UNITED STATES
v.
ULRICI and others.
March 17, 1884.

[Syllabus from page 38 intentionally omitted]

[Statement of Case from pages 38-39 intentionally omitted]

Page 39

Sol. Gen. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.

No brief for defendants in error.

Page 40

WOODS, J.

The assignment of error is that judgment was given for the defendants, whereas it should have been given for the plaintiff. We think the judgment was right. It is c

lear, even upon a cursory reading, that the well-considered and minute provisions of the Revised Statutes found in chapter 4, entitled 'Distilled Spirits,' of title 35, entitled 'Internal Revenue,' were adopted with one purpose only, namely, to secure the payment of the tax imposed by law upon distilled spirits. All the regulations for the manufacture and storage, the marking, branding, numbering, and stamping with taxstamps of distilled spirits, and all the penalties, forfeitures, fines, and imprisonments prescribed by the chapter mentioned have that end only in view. If the tax on distilled spirits were repealed, all the ingenious and complicated provisions of the chapter would become useless and insensible. Among them is the requirement that when spirits are deposited in a distillery warehouse, the owner should give bond conditioned that he will pay the tax due thereon within one year, and before the spirits are removed. It is clear that the object of exacting this bond is to make sure the payment of the tax. It would seem, therefore, that if the tax is paid within the time limited, either by the distiller or out of the proceeds of the spirits subject to the tax, the object for which the bond was taken is accomplished, and it becomes functus officio, and the obligors are discharged.

The contention of the counsel for the government is that the forfeiture of the spirits on which a tax is due for the fraudulent acts of the distiller in seeking to evade its payment is a punishment for the offense, criminal or quasi criminal, of the distiller, and that the application of the proceeds of the forfeited spirits to the payment of the tax cannot have the effect of relieving him from the obligation of his bond. Such, in our opinion, is not the true construction of the law regulating the imposition and collection of the tax on distilled spirits.

Page 41

Section 3458 of the Revised Statutes, tit. 35, provides that 'when any whisky or tobacco or other article of manufacture or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • United States v. Whitehead, No. 18607.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 3, 1970
    ...were repealed, all the ingenious and complicated provisions of the chapter would become useless and insensible." United States v. Ulrici, 111 U.S. 38, 40, 4 S.Ct. 288, 289, 28 L.Ed. 344 Returning to the language of Albertson, the statutory provisions here attacked are "neutral on their face......
  • United States v. Hunt, No. 17258.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 1, 1969
    ...it would appear that the statutes involved here are principally regulatory in nature rather than suppressive. In United States v. Ulrici, 111 U.S. 38 at 40, 4 S.Ct. 288, at 289, 28 L.Ed. 344 (1884), it is "It is clear * * * that the * * provisions * * * entitled `Distilled Spirits\' * * * w......
  • United States v. Parente, Crim. No. H-78-2.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • April 20, 1978
    ...beverages. The single purpose behind the federal statutory framework is to make sure the payment of the tax. United States v. Ulrici, 111 U.S. 38, 40, 4 S.Ct. 288, 28 L.Ed. 344 1884. The importance of the tax is shown by the fact that in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, the total reven......
  • Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Sherwood Distilling Co., Civ. No. 11956.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • July 5, 1967
    ...the lien was upon one piece or parcel of property, and unwilling where it was upon another." 21 Wall. at 656. In United States v. Ulrici, 111 U.S. 38, 4 S.Ct. 288, 28 L.Ed. 344 (1884), the Court held that the surety on a distiller's bond also has the equitable right of exoneration. In the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • United States v. Whitehead, No. 18607.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 3, 1970
    ...were repealed, all the ingenious and complicated provisions of the chapter would become useless and insensible." United States v. Ulrici, 111 U.S. 38, 40, 4 S.Ct. 288, 289, 28 L.Ed. 344 Returning to the language of Albertson, the statutory provisions here attacked are "neutral on their face......
  • United States v. Hunt, No. 17258.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 1, 1969
    ...it would appear that the statutes involved here are principally regulatory in nature rather than suppressive. In United States v. Ulrici, 111 U.S. 38 at 40, 4 S.Ct. 288, at 289, 28 L.Ed. 344 (1884), it is "It is clear * * * that the * * provisions * * * entitled `Distilled Spirits\' * * * w......
  • United States v. Parente, Crim. No. H-78-2.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • April 20, 1978
    ...beverages. The single purpose behind the federal statutory framework is to make sure the payment of the tax. United States v. Ulrici, 111 U.S. 38, 40, 4 S.Ct. 288, 28 L.Ed. 344 1884. The importance of the tax is shown by the fact that in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, the total reven......
  • Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Sherwood Distilling Co., Civ. No. 11956.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • July 5, 1967
    ...the lien was upon one piece or parcel of property, and unwilling where it was upon another." 21 Wall. at 656. In United States v. Ulrici, 111 U.S. 38, 4 S.Ct. 288, 28 L.Ed. 344 (1884), the Court held that the surety on a distiller's bond also has the equitable right of exoneration. In the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT