Case ID: us-ct-cl_8/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee cubiasi :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

O’GRADY’S CASE. Dominick O’Grady’s Executors v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The owners of capim-ed, property recover judgment in this courtunder the Abandoned or captured property Act. They file a transcript with the Secretary of the Treasury for payment. The Secretary .refuses to pay any part of the judgment unless the attorney of the owners consents to a written stipulation that a deduction for the internatoevenue tax on cotton he made, subjeet to the future decision 
      
      of the Supreme Court as to its validity. The attorney for the owners signs the stipulation, and the balance, after deducting the tax, is paid. They now bring their action of debt against the Government to recover the amount ivitliheld.
    
    Eor tlie purposes of an appeal it is held that the Secretary of the Treasury has no right to deduct from a judgment of this court, rendered for the proceeds of captured cotton, the internal-revenue tax of two cents per ponnd on cotton, and that an action will lie against the Government for moneys so withheld.
    
      Mr. T. J. D. Fuller for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Alexander Johnston for the defendants.
   Pee cubiasi :

This suit is brought to recover tbe sum of #4,181.40, withheld by tbe Treasury Department in paying a judgment rendered by this court iu favor of tbe claimants for tbe proceeds of a quantity of cotton captured by the military forces of the United States, at Mobile, in 1865.

This court has uniformly, whenever the question has been raised, refused to deduct the internal-revenue tax of two cents per pound from the proceeds of cotton sued for; but this is the first opportunity presented for rendering a judgment for an amount withheld. As the case is expressly prepared to test the question before the appellate court, we need not enter upon a discussion of the matter involved, particularly as the further deduction of the tax in cases of this description is forbidden by the Act June 10, 1872, (17 Stat. L., 347, 369, § 6.)

We therefore content ourselves with simply putting thematter in a shape to be finally decided elsewhere, by ordering a judgment to be entered in favor of tbe claimants for the amount demanded.