United States v. Yuginovich, No. 523

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDAY
Citation41 S.Ct. 551,65 L.Ed. 1043,256 U.S. 450
PartiesUNITED STATES v. YUGINOVICH et al
Decision Date01 June 1921
Docket NumberNo. 523

256 U.S. 450
41 S.Ct. 551
65 L.Ed. 1043
UNITED STATES

v.

YUGINOVICH et al.

No. 523.
Argued March 10, 1921.
Decided June 1, 1921.

Page 451

Assistant Attorney General Adams for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 451-454 intentionally omitted]

Page 454

Mr. Ransom H. Gillett, of Albany, N. Y., for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 454-457 intentionally omitted]

Page 457

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is here under the Criminal Appeals Act. 34 Stat. 1246 (Comp. St. § 1704). The indictment is in four counts.

Page 458

The first count, based on section 3257 of the U. S. Rev. Stats. (Comp. Stats. § 5993), charges the defendants with unlawfully engaging in the business of distillers within the intent and meaning of the internal revenue laws of the United States, and that in fact they did distill spirits subject to the internal revenue tax imposed by the laws of the United States, and did defraud and attempt to defraud the United States of the tax on said spirits. The second count, based on section 3279 of the U. S. Rev. Stats. (Comp. Stat. § 6019), charges that the defendants failed to keep on the distillery, conducted by them, any sign exhibiting the name or firm of the distiller, with the words 'Registered Distillery,' as required by statute. The third court, based on section 3281 of the U. S. Rev. Stats.(Comp. Stats. § 6021), charges the defendants with carrying on the business of distilling within the intent and meaning of the revenue laws of the United States without giving the bond required by law. The fourth count, based on section 3282 of the U. S. Rev. Stats. (section 6022, Comp. Stats.), charges the defendants with unlawfully making a mash, fit for distillation, in a building not a distillery duly authorized by law.

The defendants interposed a motion to quash the indictment upon the grounds that the acts of Congress under which the same was found were repealed before the finding of the indictment, and that the acts charged to have been committed by them were after the date upon which the Eighteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305) became effective. Defendants also filed a demurrer to the indictment on practically the same grounds. The motion to quash and the demurrer were sustained by the District Court. 266 Fed. 746.

The sections of the Revised Statutes may be summarized as follows: Section 3257 makes it an offense to defraud or attempt to defraud the United States of a tax

Page 459

upon spirits distilled by one carrying on the business of a distillery, provides for forfeiting the distillery and the distilling-apparatus and all spirits found in the distillery or on the distillery premises, and subjects the offender to a fine of not less than $500 or more than $5,000, and imprisonment of not less than six months or more than three years. Section 3279 requires distillers to exhibit on the outside of their place of business a sign with the words 'Registered Distillery.' A violation of this section subjects the offender to a fine of $500. Section 3281 makes it an offense to carry on the business of a distiller without having given bond. For such offense the penalty is a fine from $1,000 to $5,000 and imprisonment not less than six months or more than three years. Section 3282 makes it penal to make or permit mash to be made in any building other than a distillery authorized by law. A violation of this section subjects the offender to a fine of not less than $500 or more than $5,000, and imprisonment of not less than six months or more than two years.

These statutes have long been part of the federal internal revenue legislation, and were passed under the authority of the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States. At the time of their enactment it was legal, so far as the federal government was concerned, to manufacture and sell ardent spirits for beverage purposes. The government derived large revenue from taxing the business, which it sought to realize and protect by the system of laws of which the sections in question were a part. This policy was radically changed by the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, and the enactment of legislation to make the amendment effective. The Eighteenth Amendment in comprehensive and clear language prohibits the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors in the United States for

Page 460

beverage purposes, and confers upon Congress the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress passed a national prohibition law known as the Volstead Act. 41 Stat. 305. It is a comprehensive statute intended to prevent the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes.

Before taking up the sections of the Revised Statutes, some provisions of the Volstead Act may be appropriately referred to. Section 3 provides that after the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect it shall be illegal to manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in the act. Liquor for nonbeverage purposes and wine for sacramental purposes may be manufactured, purchased,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
153 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Mitchell, No. 93-5728
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • November 3, 1994
    ...only misdemeanor punishment for the violation of those regulations. 10 Mitchell directs our attention to United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043 (1921). The Yuginovich Court held that Sec. 35 of the Volstead Act implicitly repealed certain revenue statutes, re......
  • Davis v. Boston & MR Co., No. 3213.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • April 14, 1937
    ...26 S.Ct. 110, 50 L. Ed. 261, 4 Ann.Cas. 737; Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 54 S.Ct. 725, 78 L.Ed. 1307; United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043); the manufacture, sale or removal for sale of articles (United States v. American Chicle Co., 256 U.S. 446, 41 S......
  • Bembenek v. Donohoo, No. 04C0002.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • January 28, 2005
    ...dicta, a later dictum supercedes an earlier one just as a later statute supercedes an earlier one. See, e.g., United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 463, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043 (1921); Fein, supra, at Second, the Seventh Circuit has indicated that it is likely that it will apply th......
  • People v. Lowell, No. 148.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 7, 1930
    ...States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 20 L. Ed. 153;In re Medley, 134 U. S. 160, 10 S. Ct. 384, 33 L. Ed. 835; United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U. S. 450, 41 S. Ct. 551, 65 L. Ed: 1043;State v. McDonald, 20 Minn. 136 (Gil. 119); State v. Smith, 56 Or. 21, 107 P. 980;Flaherty v. Thomas, 12 Allen (Ma......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
153 cases
  • U.S. v. Mitchell, No. 93-5728
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • November 3, 1994
    ...only misdemeanor punishment for the violation of those regulations. 10 Mitchell directs our attention to United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043 (1921). The Yuginovich Court held that Sec. 35 of the Volstead Act implicitly repealed certain revenue statutes, re......
  • Davis v. Boston & MR Co., No. 3213.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • April 14, 1937
    ...26 S.Ct. 110, 50 L. Ed. 261, 4 Ann.Cas. 737; Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 54 S.Ct. 725, 78 L.Ed. 1307; United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043); the manufacture, sale or removal for sale of articles (United States v. American Chicle Co., 256 U.S. 446, 41 S......
  • Bembenek v. Donohoo, No. 04C0002.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • January 28, 2005
    ...dicta, a later dictum supercedes an earlier one just as a later statute supercedes an earlier one. See, e.g., United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 463, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043 (1921); Fein, supra, at Second, the Seventh Circuit has indicated that it is likely that it will apply th......
  • People v. Lowell, No. 148.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 7, 1930
    ...States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 20 L. Ed. 153;In re Medley, 134 U. S. 160, 10 S. Ct. 384, 33 L. Ed. 835; United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U. S. 450, 41 S. Ct. 551, 65 L. Ed: 1043;State v. McDonald, 20 Minn. 136 (Gil. 119); State v. Smith, 56 Or. 21, 107 P. 980;Flaherty v. Thomas, 12 Allen (Ma......
  • 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