Case ID: us-ct-cl_16/html/0629-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Swayne", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph S. Finch et al., appellants, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the claimants’’ Appeal.
    
    
      In 1868 a distiller applies for two Tiee meters and deposits the price with the collector pursuant to the regulations. The meters are shipped by tke manufacturer, cmd the money is paid over to him by the collector, but one of them is never attached to the distillery and the other is defective. Neither is ever used by the revenue officers. The distillery is not suspended nor interfered with for want of effective meters, but they havingibeen practically useless and ultimately abandoned by the Internal Revenue Bureau, the distiller claims that he is entitled to recover bach from the defendants the purchase money which these regulations compelled Trim to deposit, and which their collector prematurely paid over to the manufacturer.
    
    'The court below decides: (1) That the use of meters were for the benefit of the government, and tlie omission of the officers to supervise, attach, or compel the use of such meters worked no injury to the distiller and gave him no cause of action; (2) That where a distiller deposited the price of a Tice meter with a collector, who paid it over to the manufacturer, and the meter never was attached, but the distillery never stopped for the want of it, no action lies against the government to recover back the purchase money; (3) That where a distiller deposited the price of a meter with a collector, who paid it to the manufacturer before the meter was tested, and it turned out worthless, but the distiller was not compelled^to procure another, and the distillery was not stopped for want of one, no aetion’to recover back the money from the Government will Re. * (4) That where’a distiller received a defective meter, but did not offer to return it, and^still retains it, he cannot rescind the purchase and recover back’the price. Judgment for the defendants. The claimants appeal.
    The judgment^of the court below is affirmed and upon the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Swayne

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, December 6,1880.