407 U.S. 355 (1972)
MUREL ET AL.
v.
BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT ET AL.
No. 70-5276.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 28-29, 1972.
Decided June 19, 1972.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
Karl G. Feissner and Andrew E. Greenwald argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the brief were William L. Kaplan and Thomas P. Smith.
Henry R. Lord, Deputy Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, and Edward F. Borgerding and Donald R. Stutman, Assistant Attorneys General.
Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Assistant Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Russell Iungerich and William R. Pounders, Deputy Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of California as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
*356 Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Alan F. Charles for the National Legal Program on Health Problems of the Poor, and by Curtis R. Reitz and Julian Tepper for the Prison Research Council of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners were convicted of various state crimes and sentenced to fixed terms of imprisonment. They were then committed to the Patuxent Institution in lieu of sentence, for an indeterminate period, pursuant to the Maryland Defective Delinquency Law, Md. Ann. Code, Art. 31B. They sought federal habeas corpus, challenging on constitutional grounds the criteria and procedures that led to their commitment, and the conditions of their confinement. They contend, inter alia, that the statutory standard for commitment is impermissibly vague, that they are entitled to put the government to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the compulsory psychiatric examination prescribed by the statute they were entitled to have the assistance of counsel and to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, and that they are being denied a constitutional right to treatment. The District Court denied relief sub nom. Sas v. Maryland, 295 F. Supp. 389 (Md. 1969), and the Court of Appeals affirmed sub nom. Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F. 2d 1153 (CA4 1971).[1] We granted certiorari, 404 U. S. 999 *357 (1971), to consider whether, and to what extent, the constitutional guarantees invoked by petitioners apply to this kind of commitment process. After briefing and oral argument, it now appears that this case does not present these issues in a manner that warrants the exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court.
1. Of the four petitioners, one has been unconditionally released from confinement, and the other three are subject to criminal sentences that have not yet expired, and that would bar their release from custody even if their claims were to prevail.[2] This fact, while not necessarily dispositive of all the claims presented by these petitioners, casts those claims in a different light, not contemplated by our original grant of the writ.[3] Cf. McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, ante, p. 245.
2. Under our decisions in Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U. S. 107 (1966), Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U. S. 504 (1972), and Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715 (1972), petitioners' challenge to the Maryland Defective Delinquency Law should be considered in relation to the *358 criteria, procedures, and treatment that the State of Maryland makes available to other persons, not "defective delinquents," committed for compulsory psychiatric treatment. We are informed that the statutes governing civil commitment in Maryland are presently undergoing substantial revision, designed to provide greater substantive and procedural safeguards to committed persons. Accordingly, it seems a particularly inopportune time for this Court to consider a comprehensive challenge to the Defective Delinquency Law.
In these circumstances, the writ of certiorari is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.
Patuxent Institution is a special prison used by the State of Maryland for the incarceration of "defective delinquents." Individuals who have demonstrated "persistent aggravated anti-social or criminal behavior," who have "a propensity toward criminal activity," and who have "either such intellectual deficiency or emotional unbalance" as to present "an actual danger to society" may be confined at Patuxent. Md. Ann. Code, Art 31B, § 5 (1971). The initial determination that one is a defective delinquent is made judicially and, for those confined to Patuxent after such a determination, there is the right to seek judicial redetermination of their status at three-year intervals. Id., § 6 et seq. One of the objectives of Patuxent supposedly is to provide treatment for the inmates so that they may be returned to society. Director v. Daniels, 243 Md. 16, 31-32, 221 A. 2d 397, 406 (1966). Should a defective delinquent not receive treatment, or should the treatment prove inadequate to return him to society, the inmate might *359 well remain in Patuxent for the remainder of his life. See McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, ante, p. 245.
Petitioners brought this action in the District Court challenging various aspects of their confinement at Patuxent. The District Court denied relief, Sas v. Maryland, 295 F. Supp. 389 (Md. 1969); the Court of Appeals affirmed, Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F. 2d 1153 (CA4 1971); and we granted the petition for a writ of certiorari. 404 U. S. 999. Because I base my decision on narrow grounds, I do not reach the broader issues tendered by petitioners.
When a State moves to deprive an individual of his liberty, to incarcerate him indefinitely, or to place him behind bars for what may be the rest of his life, the Federal Constitution requires that it meet a more rigorous burden of proof than that employed by Maryland to commit defective delinquents. The Defective Delinquency Law does not specify the burden of proof necessary to commit an individual to Patuxent, but the Maryland Court of Appeals has determined that the State need only prove its case by the "fair preponderance of the evidence." E. g., Crews v. Director, 245 Md. 174, 225 A. 2d 436 (1967); Termin v. Director, 243 Md. 689, 221 A. 2d 658 (1966); Dickerson v. Director, 235 Md. 668, 202 A. 2d 765 (1964); Purks v. State, 226 Md. 43, 171 A. 2d 726 (1961); Blizzard v. State, 218 Md. 384, 147 A. 2d 227 (1958); and see Sas v. Maryland, 334 F. 2d 506 (CA4 1964); Walker v. Director, 6 Md. App. 206, 250 A. 2d 900 (1969). Petitioners have thus been taken from their families and deprived of their constitutionally protected liberty under the same standard of proof applicable to run-of-the-mill automobile negligence actions.[1]
*360 The Court of Appeals disapproved this standard but, because it felt it insignificant, nonetheless held it to be consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause:
"We might all be happier had [the burden of persuasion] been stated in terms of clear and convincing proof rather than in terms of a preponderance of the evidence. However meaningful the distinction may be to us as judges, however, it is greatly to be doubted that a jury's verdict would ever be influenced by the choice of one standard or the other. We all know that juries apply the preponderance standard quite flexibly, depending upon the nature of the case. In any event, in the present state of our knowledge, choice of the standard *361 of proof should be left to the state. A legislative [sic] choice of the preponderance standard, the same standard governing civil commitments of mentally ill persons who have no history of criminality, ought not to be held in violation of due process requirements when we have no firm foundation for an evaluation of the practical effects of the choice." Tippett v. Maryland, supra, at 1158-1159.
Judge Sobeloff dissented in part and would have held the State to a more stringent burden:
"The reasonable doubt standard is indispensable in both criminal and juvenile proceedings . . . for `it impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue.' . . .
"The objections to the preponderance standard apply with equal force in defective delinquency hearings - indeed they are even more compelling in the latter class of cases, since indefinite incarceration is at stake. Due process commands that the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to all objective facts in dispute, including the truth of any alleged incidents relied upon by the psychiatrists in reaching their recommendation." Id., at 1165 (citations omitted).
In considering the constitutionally mandated burdens of proof applicable to particular types of cases, our decisions have attached greater significance to the varying standards than did the Court of Appeals below. In Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 520-521 (1958), we said:
"To experienced lawyers it is commonplace that the outcome of a lawsuit - and hence the vindication of legal rights - depends more often on how the factfinder appraises the facts than on a disputed *362 construction of a statute or interpretation of a line of precedents. Thus the procedures by which the facts of the case are determined assume an importance fully as great as the validity of the substantive rule of law to be applied. And the more important the rights at stake the more important must be the procedural safeguards surrounding those rights."
And see In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).
The reason for our continued concern over the applicable burden of proof is that a lawsuit - like any other factfinding process - is necessarily susceptible of error in the making of factual determinations. The nature of the rights implicated in the lawsuit thus determines the allocation and degree of the burden of proof and consequently the party upon whom the risk of errors in the factfinding process will be placed. We applied this reasoning in Speiser, where First Amendment rights were implicated:
"In all kinds of litigation it is plain that where the burden of proof lies may be decisive of the outcome. There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account. Where one party has at stake an interest of transcending value - as a criminal defendant his liberty - this margin of error is reduced as to him by the process of placing on the other party the burden of producing a sufficiency of proof in the first instance, and of persuading the fact-finder at the conclusion of the trial of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of producing the evidence and convincing the factfinder of his guilt." 357 U. S., at 525-526 (citations omitted).
*363 In Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U. S. 29 (1971), MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, in an opinion joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, again applied these principles and reasoned that the important First Amendment interests present in defamation actions required plaintiffs to meet an extraordinary burden of proof. JUSTICE BRENNAN said, "In libel cases . . . an erroneous verdict for the plaintiff [is] most serious. . . . [T]he possibility of such error . . . would create a strong impetus toward self-censorship which the First Amendment cannot tolerate." Id., at 50. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN thus concluded that a more rigorous burden of proof was necessary to safeguard the important First Amendment rights involved:
"We . . . hold that a libel action . . . by a private individual against a licensed radio station for a defamatory falsehood in a newscast relating to his involvement in an event of public or general concern may be sustained only upon clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Id., at 52.
In re Winship, supra, dealt with an individual's personal liberty which we had characterized as "an interest of transcending value" in Speiser, 357 U. S., at 525. There, we determined that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was constitutionally required "because of the possibility that [an individual might] lose his liberty" and because of the stigma of a criminal conviction. 397 U. S., at 363. And see Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 385 U. S. 276, 285 (1966).
In the present case, petitioners were deprived of their most basic right - their personal liberty - under a burden of proof which was constitutionally inadequate. The *364 right to liberty is one of transcendent value. Without it, other constitutionally protected rights such as the right of free expression and the right of privacy become largely meaningless. Yet Maryland has deprived petitioners of this right, using a burden of proof which fails to give sufficient weight to the interests involved.
It is no answer to say that petitioners' commitments were in "civil" proceedings and that the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required only in "criminal" cases. In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967), and In re Winship, supra, specifically rejected this distinction and looked instead at the interests involved and the actual nature of the proceedings. See also Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U. S. 107 (1966); Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605 (1967). Nor would it be persuasive to argue that the difficulty in proving one's state of mind requires that the State be afforded the benefit of a lesser burden of proof. Proving a state of mind is no more difficult than many other issues with which courts and juries grapple each day.[2] An individual who is confronted with *365 the possibility of commitment, moreover, runs the risk of losing his most important right - his liberty.
Speiser and Winship indicate that an individual's personal liberty is an interest of transcending value for the deprivation of which the State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I would follow established precedent and hold that a State may not subject individuals to lengthy - if not indefinite - incarceration under a lesser burden of proof. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment below.
NOTES
[1]  Petitioner Murel was originally committed as a defective delinquent in 1962, and Creswell in 1958; their separate petitions for federal habeas corpus were denied without hearing in 1963. On appeal, the Court of Appeals consolidated these and other similar cases, and remanded all of them for a hearing, sub nom. Sas v. Maryland, 334 F. 2d 506 (CA4 1964). The hearing was deferred, by agreement of the parties, pending the outcome of related litigation in the state courts, which culminated in the decision in Director v. Daniels, 243 Md. 16, 221 A. 2d 397, cert. denied sub nom. Avey v. Boslow, 385 U. S. 940 (1966). The federal habeas hearing was then held in the consolidated cases, which by this time also included that of petitioners Hayes and Avey, who had been committed after the Court of Appeals' remand order. The petitions were again denied, 295 F. Supp. 389 (Md. 1969), and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 436 F. 2d 1153 (CA4 1971).
[2]  At the start of this litigation nine years ago both Murel and Creswell were subject to confinement that was wholly attributable to the Defective Delinquency Law, their sentences having expired. This is no longer the case because Murel was recently released, and Creswell was convicted and sentenced on new charges. We therefore do not reach their claims.
[3]  We do not suggest that these claims are moot, or that a case or controversy is lacking, or that habeas corpus is inappropriate to test the special incidents, if any, of these defective-delinquency confinements. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 (1963); North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244, 248 (1971).
[1]  In petitioner Murel's redetermination hearing on December 21, 1964, for example, the trial court instructed the jury: "The burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of evidence, as I have stated to you, that the defendant does come within all phases of the definition of a defective delinquent." Trial Transcript 70.

The jury instructions in petitioner Creswell's December 20, 1961, redetermination trial were similar:
"The burden of proof in this particular case is governed by our normal civil rules of evidence. The burden of proof is on the State to satisfy you that this defendant is a defective delinquent. If the State has not satisfied you by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a defective delinquent, or if your minds are in a state of equal balance, or even balance, after considering all the evidence as to whether he is or is not a defective delinquent, then it is your duty to find him to be not a defective delinquent.
"However, if you are satisfied by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a defective delinquent, then it is your duty to so find him to be such defective delinquent." Trial Transcript 75-76.
The record developed in the District Court also included the jury instructions in the October 30, 1959, redetermination hearing of Charles Tippett, who was a petitioner in the District Court:
"The Court informs you that having once been determined to be a defective delinquent and now that he comes before you and asks to be released as cured of whatever defect there was, the burden is on him to convince you by a fair preponderance of the testimony that that is so." Trial Transcript 40.
[2]  Bruce J. Ennis, Staff Attorney of the New York Civil Liberties Union and Director of the Civil Liberties and Mental Illness Project, testified as follows before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st & 2d Sess., 277-278 (1969 and 1970):

"As I mentioned earlier, the mentally ill are possibly less dangerous than the mentally healthy. A five and a half year study of 5,000 patients discharged from New York State mental hospitals showed that `patients with no record of prior arrest have a strikingly low rate of arrest after release. . . . Their over-all rate of arrest is less than 1/12 that of the general population and the rate for each separate offense is also far lower, especially for more serious charges.' Another psychiatrist states that there is `not a shred of evidence that the mentally ill are any more dangerous than the mentally healthy.' A diagnosis of mental illness tells us nothing about whether the person so diagnosed is or is not dangerous. Some mental patients are dangerous, some are not. Perhaps the psychiatrist is an expert at deciding whether a person is mentally ill, but is he an expert at predicting which of the persons so diagnosed are dangerous? Sane people, too, are dangerous, and it may legitimately be inquired whether there is anything in the education, training or experience of psychiatrists which renders them particularly adept at predicting dangerous behavior. Predictions of dangerous behavior, no matter who makes them, are incredibly inaccurate, and there is a growing consensus that psychiatrists are not uniquely qualified to predict dangerous behavior and are, in fact, less accurate in their predictions than other professionals.
"Because predictions of dangerous behavior are so grossly unreliable, we should authorize confinement only if the predicted danger is proved `beyond a reasonable doubt' rather than by a mere preponderance of the evidence." (Footnotes omitted.)


290 U.S. 56 (1933)
GRISWOLD ET AL., EXECUTORS,
v.
HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 38.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued October 19, 20, 1933.
Decided November 6, 1933.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
*57 Mr. Wm. N. Haddad argued the cause, and Mr. Walter T. Fisher filed a brief, for petitioners.
Mr. Erwin N. Griswold, with whom Solicitor General Biggs and Messrs. Sewall Key and Wm. Cutler Thompson were on the brief, for respondent.
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 402 of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 277, 278, imposing an inheritance tax, provides,
"Sec. 402. That the value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the value at the time of his death of all property, . . .

.....
"(d) To the extent of the interest therein held jointly or as tenants in the entirety by the decedent and any other person, . . ."
The decedent died in 1923, while the foregoing provision was in effect. At the time of his death he and his wife held as joint tenants certain real estate in Illinois, title to which vested in them by conveyance on October 5, 1909. The commissioner valued this real estate at $90,000, and included the whole of it in the value of decedent's gross estate as being within the reach of § 402 (d). Upon appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals, that tribunal, disapproving in part the commissioner's determination, held that the value of only decedent's one-half of the property could be included for the purposes of the tax. 23 B.T.A. 635. The circuit court of appeals affirmed. 62 F. (2d) 591.
*58 Whether this application of the statute gives it a retroactive effect is the sole question here involved; and with that we find no difficulty. Under the statute the death of decedent is the event in respect of which the tax is laid. It is the existence of the joint tenancy at that time, and not its creation at the earlier date, which furnishes the basis for the tax. By the judgment under review, only half of the value, that is to say, the value of decedent's interest, has been included, leaving the survivor's interest unaffected. After the creation of the joint tenancy, and until his death, decedent retained his interest in, and control over, half of the property. Cessation of that interest and control at death presented the proper occasion for the imposition of a tax. See Gwinn v. Commissioner, 287 U.S. 224, and cases cited. And since that is all that is sought to be reached by the tax here in question, the complaint that the statute has been given a retroactive application obviously is without substance. The statute as applied does not lay a tax in respect of an event already past, but in respect of one yet to happen.
Petitioners insist that Knox v. McElligott, 258 U.S. 546, is to the contrary, but, clearly, it is not. There the tax return included the value of decedent's one-half of the jointly owned property, but did not include the value of the half which had been owned and enjoyed by the surviving joint tenant. Nevertheless, the commissioner undertook to impose a tax in respect of the value of this latter half as well. This court held that to do so was to apply the statute retroactively, and that this, under the circumstances of that case, could not be done. It did not hold, or intend to hold, that the statute was retroactive in so far as the value of the decedent's half of the joint estate was concerned. That question was not there involved. It is the only question here.
Judgment affirmed.


541 U.S. 149 (2004)
UNITED STATES
v.
FLORES-MONTANO
No. 02-1794.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued February 25, 2004.
Decided March 30, 2004.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
*150 REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 156.
Lisa S. Blatt argued the cause for the United States. With her on the briefs were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Wray, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, Daniel S. Goodman, and Alfonso Robles.
Steven F. Hubachek, by appointment of the Court, 540 U. S. 1043, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Vincent J. Brunkow and John C. Lemon.[*]
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
Customs officials seized 37 kilograms  -  a little more than 81 pounds  -  of marijuana from respondent Manuel Flores-Montano's gas tank at the international border. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, relying on an earlier decision by a divided panel of that court, United States v. Molina-Tarazon, 279 F. 3d 709 (2002), held that the Fourth Amendment forbade the fuel tank search absent reasonable suspicion. No. 02-50306, 2003 WL 22410705 (Mar. 14, 2003). We hold that the search in question did not require reasonable suspicion.
Respondent, driving a 1987 Ford Taurus station wagon, attempted to enter the United States at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in southern California. A customs inspector conducted an inspection of the station wagon, and requested respondent to leave the vehicle. The vehicle was then taken to a secondary inspection station.
*151 At the secondary station, a second customs inspector inspected the gas tank by tapping it, and noted that the tank sounded solid. Subsequently, the inspector requested a mechanic under contract with Customs to come to the border station to remove the tank. Within 20 to 30 minutes, the mechanic arrived. He raised the car on a hydraulic lift, loosened the straps and unscrewed the bolts holding the gas tank to the undercarriage of the vehicle, and then disconnected some hoses and electrical connections. After the gas tank was removed, the inspector hammered off bondo (a putty-like hardening substance that is used to seal openings) from the top of the gas tank. The inspector opened an access plate underneath the bondo and found 37 kilograms of marijuana bricks. The process took 15 to 25 minutes.
A grand jury for the Southern District of California indicted respondent on one count of unlawfully importing marijuana, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 952, and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of § 841(a)(1). Relying on Molina-Tarazon, respondent filed a motion to suppress the marijuana recovered from the gas tank. In Molina-Tarazon, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that removal of a gas tank requires reasonable suspicion in order to be consistent with the Fourth Amendment. 279 F. 3d, at 717.
The Government advised the District Court that it was not relying on reasonable suspicion as a basis for denying respondent's suppression motion, but that it believed Molina-Tarazon was wrongly decided. The District Court, relying on Molina-Tarazon, held that reasonable suspicion was required to justify the search and, accordingly, granted respondent's motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals, citing Molina-Tarazon, summarily affirmed the District Court's judgment. No. 02-50306, 2003 WL 22410705 (CA9, Mar. 14, 2003). We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 945 (2003), and now reverse.
*152 In Molina-Tarazon, the Court of Appeals decided a case presenting similar facts to the one at bar. It asked "whether [the removal and dismantling of the defendant's fuel tank] is a `routine' border search for which no suspicion whatsoever is required." 279 F. 3d, at 711. The Court of Appeals stated that "[i]n order to conduct a search that goes beyond the routine, an inspector must have reasonable suspicion," and the "critical factor" in determining whether a search is "routine" is the "degree of intrusiveness." Id., at 712-713.
The Court of Appeals seized on language from our opinion in United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U. S. 531 (1985), in which we used the word "routine" as a descriptive term in discussing border searches. Id., at 538 ("Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant"); id., at 541, n. 4 ("Because the issues are not presented today we suggest no view on what level of suspicion, if any, is required for nonroutine border searches such as strip, body-cavity, or involuntary x-ray searches"). The Court of Appeals took the term "routine," fashioned a new balancing test, and extended it to searches of vehicles. But the reasons that might support a requirement of some level of suspicion in the case of highly intrusive searches of the person  -  dignity and privacy interests of the person being searched  -  simply do not carry over to vehicles. Complex balancing tests to determine what is a "routine" search of a vehicle, as opposed to a more "intrusive" search of a person, have no place in border searches of vehicles.
The Government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border. Time and again, we have stated that "searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the *153 border." United States v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606, 616 (1977). Congress, since the beginning of our Government, "has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country." Montoya de Hernandez, supra, at 537 (citing Ramsey, supra, at 616-617 (citing Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, 1 Stat. 29)). The modern statute that authorized the search in this case, 46 Stat. 747, 19 U. S. C. § 1581(a),[1] derived from a statute passed by the First Congress, the Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, § 31, 1 Stat. 164, see United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U. S. 579, 584 (1983), and reflects the "impressive historical pedigree" of the Government's power and interest, id., at 585. It is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity.
That interest in protecting the borders is illustrated in this case by the evidence that smugglers frequently attempt to penetrate our borders with contraband secreted in their automobiles' fuel tank. Over the past 5½ fiscal years, there have been 18,788 vehicle drug seizures at the southern California ports of entry. App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a. Of those 18,788, gas tank drug seizures have accounted for 4,619 of the vehicle drug seizures, or approximately 25%. Ibid. In addition, instances of persons smuggled in and around gas tank compartments are discovered at the ports of entry of *154 San Ysidro and Otay Mesa at a rate averaging 1 approximately every 10 days. Id., at 16a.
Respondent asserts two main arguments with respect to his Fourth Amendment interests. First, he urges that he has a privacy interest in his fuel tank, and that the suspicionless disassembly of his tank is an invasion of his privacy. But on many occasions, we have noted that the expectation of privacy is less at the border than it is in the interior. Montoya de Hernandez, supra, at 538. We have long recognized that automobiles seeking entry into this country may be searched. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925) ("Travellers may be so stopped in crossing an international boundary because of national self protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in"). It is difficult to imagine how the search of a gas tank, which should be solely a repository for fuel, could be more of an invasion of privacy than the search of the automobile's passenger compartment.
Second, respondent argues that the Fourth Amendment "protects property as well as privacy," Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 62 (1992), and that the disassembly and reassembly of his gas tank is a significant deprivation of his property interest because it may damage the vehicle. He does not, and on the record cannot, truly contend that the procedure of removal, disassembly, and reassembly of the fuel tank in this case or any other has resulted in serious damage to, or destruction of, the property.[2] According to *155 the Government, for example, in fiscal year 2003, 348 gas tank searches conducted along the southern border were negative (i. e., no contraband was found), the gas tanks were reassembled, and the vehicles continued their entry into the United States without incident. Brief for United States 31.
Respondent cites not a single accident involving the vehicle or motorist in the many thousands of gas tank disassemblies that have occurred at the border. A gas tank search involves a brief procedure that can be reversed without damaging the safety or operation of the vehicle. If damage to a vehicle were to occur, the motorist might be entitled to recovery. See, e. g., 31 U. S. C. § 3723; 19 U. S. C. § 1630. While the interference with a motorist's possessory interest is not insignificant when the Government removes, disassembles, and reassembles his gas tank, it nevertheless is justified by the Government's paramount interest in protecting the border.[3]
For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Government's authority to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel tank. While it may be true that some *156 searches of property are so destructive as to require a different result, this was not one of them. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE BREYER, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion in full. I also note that Customs keeps track of the border searches its agents conduct, including the reasons for the searches. Tr. of Oral Arg. 53-54. This administrative process should help minimize concerns that gas tank searches might be undertaken in an abusive manner.
NOTES
[*]   Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

John Wesley Hall, Jr., David M. Siegel, and Lisa B. Kemler filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
[1]  Section 1581(a) provides:

"Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area established under the Anti-Smuggling Act, or at any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine, inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel compliance."
[2]  Respondent's reliance on cases involving exploratory drilling searches is misplaced. See United States v. Rivas, 157 F. 3d 364 (CA5 1998) (drilling into body of trailer required reasonable suspicion); United States v. Robles, 45 F. 3d 1 (CA1 1995) (drilling into machine part required reasonable suspicion); United States v. Carreon, 872 F. 2d 1436 (CA10 1989) (drilling into camper required reasonable suspicion). We have no reason at this time to pass on the reasonableness of drilling, but simply note the obvious factual difference that this case involves the procedure of removal, disassembly, and reassembly of a fuel tank, rather than potentially destructive drilling. We again leave open the question "whether, and under what circumstances, a border search might be deemed `unreasonable' because of the particularly offensive manner in which it is carried out." United States v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606, 618, n. 13 (1977).
[3]  Respondent also argued that he has some sort of Fourth Amendment right not to be subject to delay at the international border and that the need for the use of specialized labor, as well as the hour actual delay here and the potential for even greater delay for reassembly are an invasion of that right. Respondent points to no cases indicating the Fourth Amendment shields entrants from inconvenience or delay at the international border.

The procedure in this case took about an hour (including the wait for the mechanic). At oral argument, the Government advised us that, depending on the type of car, a search involving the disassembly and reassembly of a gas tank may take one to two hours. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. We think it clear that delays of one to two hours at international borders are to be expected.


77 U.S. 507
19 L.Ed. 1028
10 Wall. 507
MESSENGERv.MASON.
December Term, 1870

MOTION to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. The case was thus:
Mason sued Messenger in one of the county courts of Iowa, to recover the possession of certain land in that State. He relied upon a judgment in partition of the tract, rendered in the District Court of the Territory of Iowa, in April, 1841, in pursuance of a law of that Territory.
The defendant objected to the admission of the record of judgment on the ground that the law under which the proceedings were had was unconstitutional and void.
The objection was overruled, the record admitted, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. On an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Territory, by the defendant, the judgment was affirmed, and the case was brought here as within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.
The certificate from the Supreme Court of Iowa certified:
'That on the final hearing, the validity of the partition law of Iowa Territory, approved January 4th, 1839, was drawn in question, on the ground that the same was in conflict with the Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United States, the treaties and laws thereof, that the objections thereto were overruled, and the statute held to be valid.'
The Territory of Iowa, it should be stated, was not a part of that to which the Ordinance of 1787 originally applied, but was a part of the Louisiana purchase. Prior to June 12th, 1838, it was part of the Territory of Wisconsin.1 The act, however, of the date just mentioned, which set it off and made its organic law, incorporated into its laws, indirectly, many of the provisions of the ordinance by extending to its inhabitants the rights and privileges theretofore secured to the Territory of Wisconsin by its organic law, among which were those found in the ordinance.2 But the section that conferred these rights and privileges upon the new Territory of Iowa, provided that they should be subject 'to be altered, modified, or repealed' by its governor and legislative assembly.
Mr. Mason now moved to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction, submitting that the certificate did not present any Federal question, and that the case was not within the 25th section.
Mr. Wills, contra, insisted that it was plain enough by the certificate that a right set up under the Ordinance of 1787 had been denied to his clients in consequence of the partition law of Iowa; and as the Ordinance of 1787, made by the Congress of the Confederation, was continued in force by an act of the Congress of the United States,3 that a Federal question was thus raised.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

1
It is insisted, on the part of the defendant in error, that an examination of the record will show that there is no Federal question in the case of which this court can take cognizance.

2
In the case of Maxwell v. Newbold et al.4 it was held the objection that 'the charge of the court, the verdict of the jury, and the judgment below are each against, and in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States,' was not sufficiently specific to raise a question within the provisions of this section. The Chief Justice in delivering the opinion of the court observes, that 'the clause in the Constitution and the law of Congress should have been specified by the plaintiffs in error in the State court, in order that this court might see what was the right claimed by them, and whether it was denied by the decision of the State court.' This court had previously held, in Lawler v. Walker and others,5 that the statement in a certificate of the State court that there was drawn in question the validity of statutes of Ohio, without saying what statutes, was too indefinite, and that the statutes complained of in the case should have been specified. These decisions were reaffirmed in Hoyt v. Shelden.6 It is quite clear, upon these authorities, that the constitutional objection taken in the present case is too general to be noticed on a writ of error under this 25th section.

3
As to the effect of the certificate from the court below, see Commercial Bank v. Buckingham,7 Lawler v. Walker,8 and Porter v. Foley.9

4
One difficulty in bringing the case within this 25th section is, that it makes no provision for the re-examination of a judgment in a State court which upholds the validity of a statute of a Territory in contravention of the Constitution. It applies only to the case where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or authority exercised under, any State. The circumstance, therefore, that the court below held the statute of the Territory providing for partition of lands among tenants in common, valid, is of no importance in the case.10

5
It has been urged on the argument, however, in view of the certificate of the court, that a right set up under the Ordinance of 1787, by the defendants at the trial, had been denied them, and that the construction of a law of Congress had thus been drawn in question.

6
Although the organic law of the Territory of Iowa did incorporate into its system of laws, indirectly, many of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787, by extending to its inhabitants the rights and privileges theretofore secured to the Territory of Wisconsin by its organic law, among which were those found in the ordinance, yet the same section that conferred these rights and privileges upon the Territory of Iowa provided that they should be subject to be altered, modified, or repealed by the governor and legislative assembly of the said Territory. If, therefore, anything is found in this act of partition in conflict with these provisions, to that extent they must be regarded as altered or modified, which affords a complete answer to the ground relied upon under the ordinance.

7
MOTION GRANTED.

8
Mr. Justice MILLER took no part in the decision, having been counsel in the case.

1
 5 Stat. at Large, 235.

2
 Act of 7th August, 1789, 1 Stat. at Large, 50.

3
 § 12.

4
 18 Howard, 511.

5
 14 Howard, 149.

6
 1 Black, 518.

7
 5 Howard, 317.

8
 14 Ib. 149.

9
 24 Id. 413.

10
 Scott v. Jones, 5 Howard, 375.


346 U.S. 325 (1953)
LEMKE
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 109.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided October 12, 1953.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
Bailey E. Bell for petitioner.
Acting Solicitor General Davis, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
PER CURIAM.
This case is here on a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed an appeal as premature. Rule 37 (a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "An appeal by a defendant may be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from . . . ."
*326 On March 10, 1952, petitioner was sentenced to six months in jail after a jury verdict finding him guilty of violating § 65-5-81 of the Alaska Compiled Laws Ann., 1949. On March 11, 1952, petitioner filed his notice of appeal. The judgment, however, was not entered until March 14, 1952. Since no notice of appeal was filed after that time, the appeal was dismissed as premature, Judge Pope dissenting.
The notice of appeal filed on March 11 was, however, still on file on March 14 and gave full notice after that date, as well as before, of the sentence and judgment which petitioner challenged. We think the irregularity is governed by Rule 52 (a) which reads "Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded."
Accordingly we grant the petition for certiorari, reverse the judgment below, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


542 U.S. 947
BARRAZAv.DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.
No. 03A1058 (03-11049).
Supreme Court of United States.
June 29, 2004.

1
Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to JUSTICE SCALIA, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.


76 U.S. 415 (____)
9 Wall. 415
THE SUPERVISORS
v.
DURANT.
Supreme Court of United States.

*416 Mr. Henry Strong, for the plaintiff in error.
*417 Mr. Grant, contra.
Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.
Since the decisions which have been made by this court during the last four years, there is almost nothing in the record now before us remaining open for adjudication. Indeed, it is not now contended that mandamus is not a proper remedy in cases like the present, when a relator has obtained a judgment, which can be satisfied only by the levy of a tax, and when the proper officers of the municipality, against which the judgment has been obtained, refuse, or neglect to levy it. That it is a legitimate remedy has been ruled in very many cases.[*] In such a case "the writ is" (to use the language of the court in Riggs v. Johnson County) "neither a prerogative writ, nor a new suit. On the contrary, it is a proceeding ancillary to the judgment which gives the jurisdiction, and, when issued," it "becomes a substitute for the ordinary process of execution, to enforce the payment of the same, as provided in the contract." It is a step toward the execution of the judgment, and necessary to the jurisdiction of the court.
It is insisted, however, that even if the Circuit Court may award a mandamus to aid in the enforcement of its judgments, the writ should not have been awarded in this case, because the District Court of Washington County had enjoined the defendants against levying and collecting any tax for the payment of the bonds and coupons, for a portion of which the relator had obtained his judgment. This injunction the defendants pleaded, and to the plea the relator demurred. *418 That such an injunction was wholly inoperative to prevent the Circuit Court of the United States from enforcing its judgment by mandamus to the defendants to compel them to levy the tax which the law authorized and required, is no longer to be doubted. Its invalidity to work such an effect has been placed beyond question by the rulings of this court in the cases already cited. In Riggs v. Johnson County, where it appeared that an injunction had been obtained, in one of the State courts, upon the county commissioners, enjoining them against levying any tax to pay certain municipal bonds and coupons, a mandamus was nevertheless sustained to compel the levy of a tax, at the suit of one who had obtained judgment in the Circuit Court for some of the coupons. That case is full authority for the doctrine that an injunction of a State court cannot control, or in any manner affect the action, the process, or the proceeding of a Circuit Court, not because the latter has any paramount jurisdiction over State courts, but because the tribunals are independent of each other. It is true that in Riggs v. Johnson County it appeared the relator in the information, or suggestion for the mandamus, was not a party to the injunction suit, while the relator here was a party defendant. That, however, can make no difference. The present relator, though made a party with the other defendants, was not enjoined. The decree upon the bill for an injunction was exclusively against the board of supervisors of Washington, at the suit of others than the relator. And had he been enjoined, it is not easy to see how that fact could have limited the power of the Circuit Court. We have already remarked that the true reason why the injunction was not a bar to the mandamus is, that the District Court of the State and the Circuit Court are independent courts, and that neither can interfere with the process or proceedings of the other. It would hardly be contended that a State court can enjoin a defendant against paying a judgment which has been, or may thereafter be recovered in a Circuit Court of the United States. If it may, Federal jurisdiction is a myth. It is at the mercy of State tribunals. Yet there is no substantial difference in principle *419 between the allowance of such an injunction, and that of one against a proceeding in aid of an execution; a mandamus to levy an authorized tax to pay a judgment. The District Courts of Iowa are independent of each other. Will the injunction of one District Court limit the power of another District Court to enforce its judgment? To this no one would hazard an affirmative answer. Certainly the Circuit Courts of the United States are as exempt from State control by State courts, as are the District Courts of the State from control by each other.
It is of course immaterial whether the injunction of the District Court of Washington County was before or after the judgment obtained by the relator in the Circuit Court of the United States, or whether before or after the institution of the suit. It is not a question which court first obtained possession of the case. In the case of The Mayor v. Lord,[*] the facts were that the plaintiffs in error had been enjoined against levying a tax, before suit was brought in the Circuit Court, yet it was held that the injunction was no sufficient answer to the alternative mandamus commanding them to levy a tax to pay the judgment afterwards recovered.
The plaintiffs in error are thus met at every point of their case by decisions of this court heretofore made, decisions which justify the court below in sustaining the demurrer to their return to the alternative writ, and in awarding a peremptory mandamus.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED WITH COSTS.
NOTES
[*]  The Board of Commissioners of Knox County v. Aspinwall et al. 24 Howard, 376; Von Hoffman v. The City of Quincy, 4 Wallace, 535; Supervisors v. United States, ex rel. State Bank, Id. 435; Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 166; Weber v. Lee County, Id. 210; The Mayor v. Lord, supra, 409.
[*]  Supra, 409.


128 U.S. 590 (1888)
WARE
v.
ALLEN.
No. 99.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued November 28, December 3, 1888.
Decided December 17, 1888.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI.
Mr. Calderon Carlisle, with whom was Mr. Marcellus Green, for appellant.
Mr. J.M. Allen for appellees.
*592 MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.
The suit was originally commenced in the Chancery Court of Copiah County, in that State, and its equity jurisdiction was based upon a statute of Mississippi authorizing attachments to be issued out of the Courts of Chancery. The case was removed into the Circuit Court of the United States by reason of the diverse citizenship of the parties, and no question was made in that court with regard to the right to proceed in it as a case in equity.
W.P. Ware was the plaintiff below, and from a decree dismissing his bill he has taken this appeal. The action was brought upon a written instrument, of which the following is a copy:
                                  "NEW ORLEANS, Nov. 7th, 1881.
"Ninety days after date we promise to pay W.P. Ware or order ten thousand dollars for two notes of T.P. Ware for five thousand dollars each, dated August 21, '81, one on demand and one at 30 days, provided we are not defeated in the suit against T.P. Ware; if so, this note is void.
                        "Yours truly,
       "(Signed)                           ALLEN, WEST & BUSH."
The pleadings and the evidence present, without much contradiction, the following leading facts: It appears that T.P. Ware, a brother of the appellant, W.P. Ware, was conducting a mercantile business at Hazlehurst, in the State of Mississippi, and in the course thereof had extensive dealings with the firm of Allen, West & Bush, a mercantile house in the city of New Orleans, by which he became indebted to them at the *593 date of the above paper in the sum of about eighteen thousand dollars. The business of T.P. Ware was conducted almost entirely by his brother, the plaintiff in this action, and was so embarrassed that the debts could not be paid. It would also appear from the testimony that W.P. Ware had, a year or two before, conducted an unsuccessful business at the same place, in his own name, and, being likely to fail, or having become insolvent, had sold out his store and goods to T.P. Ware, his brother, but as agent, for the latter ostensibly, continued to manage or control the business which was thereafter carried on at the same stand in the name of T.P. Ware.
In this condition of affairs, W.P. Ware made a visit to Allen, West & Bush, at New Orleans, and had several interviews with them there, during which time the instrument now sued upon was executed. He stated to that firm, in the course of those interviews, that his brother was unable to pay his debts, and that his creditors were becoming impatient; that he himself held two notes made by his brother, for $5000 each, amounting to $10,000, and that he desired defendants to initiate proceedings to attach the goods of T.P. Ware, or to obtain from him an assignment or mortgage which would secure their debt as well as his own. For that purpose he proposed to assign over to them the two notes which he held against his brother, T.P. Ware, taking their obligation to pay him the amount. The defendants were disinclined to enter upon this course of proceeding, stating that they did not know of any cause for which an attachment could be issued or which would justify them in seizing the property of their debtor. The plaintiff replied that he would furnish them with cause for such attachment if they would enter into the arrangement which he proposed, that is to say, that he would show them sufficient reason for the seizing of the property by an attachment. The defendants again expressed their doubt about the success of such a course, but said they would like to consult Judge Harris, who lived in Mississippi, and also their counsel, J.M. Allen. Mr. Ware seemed impatient of this delay, as there was danger that somebody else might attach the property and thus defeat both of their claims; and finally, *594 under his pressure, the notes of T.P. Ware were transferred to the defendant firm, and they gave the instrument upon which this suit is brought.
The testimony is ample to show that before the paper was signed or agreed upon, it was distinctly understood that it was to be of no effect unless, upon consultation with Judge Harris or J.M. Allen, or both of them, the defendants were assured that the proceeding was lawful and the attachment for the full amount of both claims could be enforced. It is very true that the plaintiff does not agree to this, in the full extent in which it is thus stated by at least two or three witnesses, but all the circumstances go to confirm the truth of this statement of what actually occurred.
As soon as the defendants could do so they asked the opinion of Judge Harris upon the safety of the proposed transaction, and he declined, for reasons growing out of his relationship to Mr. Ware, to give any opinion upon the subject, or to take any part in the matter. The other counsel for the defendants, Mr. Allen, upon whose approval the transaction was to be binding, emphatically disapproved of it, and advised the defendant firm to have nothing to do with it, or with the notes of W.P. Ware against his brother, in any proceedings which they might take to collect their own claim.
Accordingly the defendants, after some delay, instituted a suit in attachment against T.P. Ware and seized the goods at Hazlehurst. The amount then sued for was their own debt and no more, to wit, a little over eighteen thousand dollars. This proceeding went on in the usual manner and resulted in a recovery, by Allen, West & Bush, of their debt, or the most of it. It also appears that W.P. Ware was promptly notified of the fact that the firm declined to proceed in the manner he had suggested.
These transactions took place in the autumn of 1881, shortly after the execution of the paper sued on here, which matured, according to its terms, on the 7th day of February, 1882. The present suit was commenced in February, 1883.
The transaction by which W.P. Ware, who was the acting manager of the affairs of his brother, undertook to secure a *595 large sum out of the remnants of the second failure of that concern, whether it was really owned by W.P. or T.P. Ware, by having that brother give him two notes, one falling due on demand and the other thirty days after date, amounting to $10,000, and by inducing Allen, West & Bush, who had a large bona fide claim against the failing concern, to take these two notes and put them in with their own, and by his aid secure an attachment that would cover all the goods and secure the payment of the debts due to them both, does not commend itself to the conscience of a chancellor. It is bitterly assailed by the defendants as an unmitigated fraud on the part of the plaintiff, with the additional allegation that the failure of W.P. Ware and the sale made to his brother was a fraud also, of which the present transaction was intended to be a repetition.
We do not think it necessary to inquire further into the evidence brought to sustain this defence, for we are quite clear that the testimony does establish the agreement alleged by the defendants to have been made at the various interviews between the persons composing the firm of Allen, West & Bush, or some of them, and the plaintiff, at and before the time when they delivered to him the instrument sued on and received from him the two notes made by his brother, T.P. Ware; that the firm were to have an opportunity to consult counsel, upon whom they relied, as to the validity of the transaction; and that if such advice was adverse, then the instrument given by them was to be of no effect.
It also sufficiently appears that they were advised, without hesitation, by the counsel to whom they had reference in those conversations about the agreement, that the transaction was not one that would stand the test of a legal investigation. This is to be considered in connection with the fact that the firm only brought suit for their own claim, and have since returned, or offered to return, the notes of W.P. Ware, which were given him by his brother and delivered to them when the paper was executed.
We are of opinion that this evidence shows that the contract upon which this suit is brought never went into effect; *596 that the condition upon which it was to become operative never occurred, and that it is not a question of contradicting or varying a written instrument by parol testimony, but that it is one of that class of cases, well recognized in the law, by which an instrument, whether delivered to a third person as an escrow or to the obligee in it, is made to depend, as to its going into operation, upon events to occur or be ascertained thereafter.
The present case is almost identical in its circumstances with that of Pym v. Campbell, in the Court of Queen's Bench, 6 Ell. & Bl. 370, 373. The defendants in that case had signed an agreement for the purchase of an interest in an invention, which the evidence showed was executed with the understanding that it should not be a bargain until a certain engineer, who was to be consulted, should approve of the invention. There was a verdict for the defendants, which was sustained, and the following language was used by Earle, J., on discharging the rule to show cause: "I think that this rule ought to be discharged. The point made is that this is a written agreement, absolute on the face of it, and that evidence was admitted to show that it was conditional; and if that had been so, it would have been wrong. But I am of opinion that the evidence showed that in fact there was never any agreement at all... . If it be proved that in fact the paper was signed with the express intention that it should not be an agreement, the other party cannot fix it as an agreement upon those signing. The distinction in point of law is that evidence to vary the terms of an agreement in writing is not admissible, but evidence to show that there is not an agreement at all is admissible."
In this view the other judges, including Lord Campbell, Chief Justice, concurred, holding that it having been explained to the plaintiff that the defendants did not intend the paper to be an agreement until the engineer had been consulted, and his approval obtained, and was signed only because it was not convenient for them to remain, it was therefore no agreement, the plaintiff having assented to this and received the writing on these terms.
*597 The same principle was announced in the Court of Common Pleas in Davis v. Jones, 17 C.B. 625, in which the distinction is clearly stated by Chief Justice Jervis, between evidence which, although parol, shows the written agreement was not to take effect until certain other things were done, as that rent should not commence running till certain repairs were completed, (although the instrument was signed and delivered,) and evidence which contradicts or varies the meaning of the instrument itself. This is concurred in by Cresswell and Crowder, JJ.
Later, in 1861, in Wallis v. Littell, 11 C.B. (N.S.) 369, the same court laid down the same doctrine in regard to an assignment of a lease of a farm which had been made by a tenant to a third party, and the instrument delivered, but with an agreement that it should not take effect until the consent of the landlord was procured. The later refused his consent, and the court held the assignment of the lease, although executed and delivered, had never become operative.
This principle was acted upon, and these authorities cited and affirmed, in the case of Wilson v. Powers, 131 Mass. 539, as late as 1881.
The doctrine was asserted in this court as early as 1808, in the case of Pawling v. United States, 4 Cranch, 219, where it was held, in a suit upon a collector's bond, that the sureties who signed it could prove by parol evidence that they did so on an express agreement that they were not to be bound until other persons who were named became bound also by signing the bond.
Without farther examination of authorities, we are of opinion that the case before us comes within the principle asserted by those we have referred to, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is, therefore,
Affirmed.


82 U.S. 380 (1872)
15 Wall. 380
PENNYWIT
v.
EATON.
Supreme Court of United States.

*381 Mr. W.M. Rose, in support of the motion; Mr. A.H. Garland, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE:
The Pulaski County Court was requested to hold, that if it appeared from the evidence that the judge who presided in the court at New Orleans and rendered the judgment there, held his office by appointment from a military governor of the State of Louisiana, and under no other authority, the judgment was void. This raised, though somewhat obscurely, the question whether the court so held had any jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States, and the question was decided against the privilege claimed under the Constitution by the defendants.
We cannot, therefore, dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction, although we may have a very clear conviction that the decision of the State court was correct.
MOTION DENIED.


191 U.S. 171 (1903)
ALLEN
v.
PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR COMPANY.
No. 27.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued October 16, 1903.
Decided November 16, 1903.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.
*174 Mr. John J. Vertres, with whom Mr. Charles T. Cates, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, was on the brief, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. William Burry, with whom Mr. J.S. Runnells was on the brief, for the defendant in error.
*177 MR. JUSTICE DAY, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The taxes in controversy were levied under certain revenue laws of the State of Tennessee. Those for the years 1887 and 1888 provided: "That the rate of taxation on the following *178 privileges shall be as follows: Sleeping cars: Each company doing business in the State, on each car per annum, $500." Section eight of the act provided: "That any and all parties, firms or corporations exercising any of the foregoing privileges must pay this tax, as set forth in this act, for the exercise of such privilege, whether they make a business of it or not."
The Tennessee act of 1877, imposing a tax upon the running of sleeping cars, was before this court for consideration in the case of Pickard v. Pullman Co., 117 U.S. 34. That act provided: "That the running or using of sleeping cars or coaches on railroads in Tennessee, not owned by the railroads upon which they are run or used, is declared to be a privilege, and the companies shall be required to pay to the comptroller by the first day of July following fifty dollars ($50) for each and every said cars or coaches used or run over said roads; and if the said privilege tax herein assessed be not paid as aforesaid the comptroller shall enforce the payment of the same by distress warrant."
It was held that the tax was a burden upon interstate commerce and void because of the exclusive power of Congress to regulate commerce between the States. Unless the statute now under consideration can be distinguished from the one then construed, the Pickard case is decisive of the present case. Both taxes were imposed under the power granted by the constitution of Tennessee to lay a privilege tax. This power is held by the Supreme Court of the State to give a wide range of legislative discretion. Any occupation, business, employment or the like, affecting the public, may be classed and taxed as a privilege. K. & O. Railroad v. Harris, 99 Tennessee, 684. In the act of 1877 the running and using of sleeping cars on railroads in the State, when the cars are not owned by the railroads upon which they are run, is declared to be a privilege. Under the act of 1887, the tax is specifically imposed upon a privilege. Under the act of 1877, the tax imposed was fifty dollars for each car or coach used or run over the road. Under the act of 1887, each company doing business in the State is *179 required to pay five hundred dollars per annum for the same privilege. The distinction, except in the amount of annual tax exacted, is without substantial difference. Under the earlier act the tax is required for the privilege of running and using sleeping cars on railroads, not owning the cars. In the later act it is exacted for the privilege of doing business in the State. This business consists of running sleeping cars upon railroads not owning the cars and is precisely the privilege to be paid for under the first act, neither more nor less. In neither act is any distinction attempted between local or through cars or carriers of passengers. The railroads upon which the cars are run are lines traversing the State but not confined to its limits. The cars of the Pullman Company run into and beyond the State as well as between points within the State. The act in its terms applies to cars running through the State as well as those whose operation is wholly intra-state. It applies to all alike, and requires payment for the privilege of running the cars of the company regardless of the fact whether used in interstate traffic or in that which is wholly within the borders of the State. There is no decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee limiting the act in its operation to intra-state traffic. It is true that the comptroller has sought to restrain the operation of the law by imposing the tax for two years upon cars running between Nashville and Memphis and between Nashville and Chattanooga for two years, and fixing one car in each year as the proportion of local business done on interstate cars for two years. But this action does not conclude the State in taxing for other years, and the action taken by the comptroller does not limit the terms of the law affecting interstate commerce.
In LeLoup v. Mobile, 127 U.S. 640, 647, it was sought to recover a penalty imposed upon an agent of the Western Union Telegraph Company for failure to pay an annual license tax as required by an ordinance of Mobile. In the course of the opinion denying the right to exact the license fee, Mr. Justice Bradley said: "But it is urged that a portion of the telegraph *180 company's business is internal to the State of Alabama, and therefore taxable by the State. But that fact does not remove the difficulty. The tax affects the whole business without discrimination. There are sufficient modes in which the internal business, if not already taxed in some other way, may be subject to taxation, without the imposition of a tax which covers the entire operations of the company."
In Osborne v. Florida, 164 U.S. 650, a license tax upon express companies was sustained, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of that State that it affected only business of the company within the State. The statute now under consideration requires payment of the sum exacted for the privilege of doing any business when the principal thing to be done is interstate traffic. We are not at liberty to read into the statute terms not found therein or necessarily implied, with a view to limiting the tax to local business, which the legislature in the terms of the act impose upon the entire business of the company. We are of opinion that taxes exacted under the act of 1887 are void as an attempt by the State to impose a burden upon interstate commerce.
Other considerations apply in the construction of the act of 1889, under which, or acts identical in terms, taxes were collected from 1889 to 1893, inclusive. It provides, p. 247, 266, c. 130, April 8, 1889: "Sec. 4. The rate of taxation on the following privileges shall be as follows, per annum: . . . Sleeping car companies (in lieu of all other taxes except ad valorem tax). Each company doing business in this State, for one or more passengers taken up at one point in this State and delivered at another point in this State, and transported wholly within the State, per annum, $3,000." Its terms apply strictly to business done in the transportation of passengers taken up at one point in the State and transported wholly within the State to another point therein. It is not necessary to review the numerous cases in this court in which attempts by the States to control or regulate interstate commerce have been the subject of consideration. While they show a zealous care to preserve *181 the exclusive right of Congress to regulate interstate traffic, the corresponding right of the State to tax and control the internal business of the State, although thereby foreign or interstate commerce may be indirectly affected, has been recognized with equal clearness. In the late case of Osborne v. Florida, supra, Mr. Justice Peckham, speaking for the court, said: "It has never been held, however, that when the business of the company, which is wholly within the State, is but a mere incident to its interstate business, such fact would furnish any obstacle to the valid taxation by the State of the business of the company which is entirely local. So long as the regulation as to the license or taxation does not refer to and is not imposed upon the business of the company which is interstate there is no interference with that commerce by the State statute."
Granting that the right exists whereby a State may impose privilege or license fees upon business carried on wholly within the State, it is argued that the tax of three thousand dollars per annum, collected for carrying one or more local passengers on cars operating within the State, is assessed upon traffic which bears such small proportion to the entire business of the company within the State, that it could not have been levied in good faith upon purely local business, and is but a thinly disguised attempt to tax the privilege of interstate traffic. If the payment of this tax was compulsory upon the company before it could do a carrying business within the State, and the burden of its payment, because of the minor character of the domestic traffic, rested mainly upon the receipts from interstate traffic, there would be much force in this objection. Upon this proposition we are unable to distinguish this case from Pullman Co. v. Adams, 189 U.S. 420, decided at the last term, wherein it was held that the privilege tax imposed by the State of Mississippi, upon each car carrying passengers from one point in the State to another therein, was a valid tax, notwithstanding the fact that the company offered to show that its receipts from the carrying of the passengers named did not equal the *182 expenses chargeable against such receipts. This conclusion was based upon the right of the company to abandon the business if it saw fit. It was urged that under the constitution of Mississippi the Pullman Company was a common carrier, required to carry passengers, and therefore could not be taxed for the privilege of doing that which it was compelled to do; but in view of a decision of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, sustaining the tax, it was assumed that no such objection existed under the state constitution. Speaking upon this subject, Mr. Justice Holmes, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "If the clause of the state constitution referred to were held to impose the obligation supposed and to be valid, we assume, without discussion, that the tax would be invalid. For then it would seem to be true that the state constitution and the statute combined would impose a burden upon commerce between the States analogous to that which was held bad in Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47. On the other hand, if the Pullman Company, whether called a common carrier or not, had the right to choose between what points it would carry, and therefore to give up the carriage of passengers from one point to another in the State, the case is governed by Osborne v. Florida, 164 U.S. 650. The company cannot complain of being taxed for the privilege of doing a local business which it is free to renounce. Both parties agree that the tax is a privilege tax."
There is additional reason for holding that the Pullman Company may transact its business in Tennessee without paying this privilege tax and continue its interstate business, declining local business, thereby escaping the attempt to tax it upon business wholly within the State. The statute of Tennessee, enacted in 1875, provides: "The rule of the common law giving a right of action to any person excluded from any hotel, or public means of transportation, or place of amusement, is hereby abrogated; and hereafter no keeper of any hotel, or public house, or carrier of passengers for hire, or conductors, drivers or employes of such carrier or keeper, shall be bound, *183 or under any obligation to entertain, carry, or admit any person whom he shall, for any reason whatsoever, choose not to entertain, carry or admit to his house, hotel, carriage or means of transportation or place of amusement, nor shall any right exist in favor of such person so refused admission, but the right of such keepers of hotels and public houses, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement and their employes to control the access and admission or exclusion of persons to or from their public houses, means of transportation, and places of amusement, shall be as perfect and complete as that of any private person over his private house, carriage or private theatre or place of amusement for his family." Shannon's Code, § 3046.
Under this act, no carrier is required to admit any passenger to his car or means of transportation. While the Pullman Company may not be technically a common carrier, still we think it comes within the scope and meaning of this act. A sleeping car is obviously a public means of transportation. Under this act, the carrier is not obliged to afford its privileges to those making application therefor. Mr. Justice Blatchford, speaking of the character of the service afforded by sleeping cars, in Pickard v. Pullman Co., 117 U.S. 34, said: "The car was equally a vehicle of transit, as if it had been a car owned by the railroad company, and the special conveniences or comforts furnished to the passenger had been furnished by the railroad company itself."
It follows that a tax imposed upon domestic business, under the circumstances shown, cannot be a burden upon interstate commerce in such sense as will invalidate it.
Under the judgment of the court below, the Pullman Company was permitted to recover for license taxes levied under both acts. In so far as it permitted a recovery for taxes under the act of 1889 and identical laws of other years, the judgment should be modified.
For that purpose, and for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, the case is remanded to the Circuit Court.


282 U.S. 479 (1931)
POTTSTOWN IRON COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 113.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued January 9, 1931.
Decided February 2, 1931.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
Mr. Paul F. Myers, with whom Mr. John R. Yates was on the brief, for petitioner.
Assistant Attorney General Rugg, with whom Solicitor General Thacher and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Charles R. Pollard, and Bradley B. Gilman were on the brief, for the United States.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
United States v. Swift & Company, ante, p. 468, controls the decision of this case.
Here the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, upon audit of petitioner's income and excess-profits tax return for 1918, found an overpayment, and at the same time found an underpayment of similar taxes for the years 1916 and 1917. On January 22, 1926, he made additional assessments of the underpayments for 1916 and 1917 *480 and on January 29 he approved a schedule of overassessments which embraced the overpayment for the year 1918. The schedule was transmitted to the Collector of the appropriate district with the usual instructions and authority to check the overassessment against the taxpayer's account and determine whether the amounts in which the tax liability had been reduced should be abated in whole or in part, and if any part of the overassessment was found to be an overpayment to apply the same against taxes due, if any, making the appropriate entry in his accounts.
After this had occurred, petitioner inquired in writing of the Collector as to the status of its account. He replied by letter dated February 23, 1926, stating that he had applied the overassessment to close out the accounts of 1916 and 1917, thus extinguishing the taxpayer's liability as shown by his books. On February 27, 1926, he returned the schedule of overassessments to the Commissioner together with the usual subsidiary schedule of credits and refunds showing how he had credited the overassessment and that there remained a balance of 1918 taxes refundable to the taxpayer amounting to $21,152.12. On April 15, 1926, the Commissioner approved the schedule, thus authorizing the issuance of checks covering the amount to be refunded.
The question is whether interest should be allowed the petitioner under § 1019 of the Revenue Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 346) or under § 1116 of the Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 119). The latter act took effect February 26, 1926. The Court of Claims held that the act of the Commissioner in approving the schedule of refunds and credits and authorizing the issuance of checks on April 15, 1926, constituted the allowance of the claim for credit, and that interest on credits for 1916 and 1917 taxes should be calculated under the Act of 1926, which had then become effective. The petitioner argues that credit was allowed *481 or taken when the Collector, prior to February 26, 1926, made the entries upon his books, and that consequently interest on the credits should be calculated under the provisions of the Act of 1924. We hold, in conformity with our decision in United States v. Swift & Co., supra, that the allowance occurred April 15, 1926, when the Commissioner finally acted on the schedule of refunds and credits. The judgment is
Affirmed.