Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1885-07-28
DECISION

OF Considerable Interest to Liquor Deal.
eFs.
Internal Revenue Commissioner Miller
has made q decision of considerable impor-
lance to liquor dealers and others, reversing,
as it does, a decision laid down by Ex.Com-
missioner Evans. The annexed letters, re-
GerriDg to one written to Collector McGraw
BY Deputy c. R. Laird, of this city, are self
explanatory:
GRAFTON, July l6.
SIR-In reference to the enclosed letter
Of Deputy C. R. Laird for your decision, l
have the honor of referring you to the letter
of ex-C Commissioners Evans of date the 10th
day of September, 1884, as reported in vol
ume so of the Internal Revenue Record at
page 2S5, ct seq., as also his circular TO
Collectors of date the 9th day Of March,
1885, and found in volume 81 of the same
record at page 50. l beg also to say thai
the questions involvent in the decision upon
which this circular is founded have been de
cided by our Supreme Court in the case Of
State vs.. Hughes, 22 West Virginia Reports,
page 743, et. seq. This decision
aairms the doctrine laid down by
The Pennsylvania Court in the case of Gar.
braith vs.. Commonwealth, ID Pennsylvania
State. Report, 449, and along a line of other
presidents, which are in reasoning and con-
c~lusion, directly opposite to and in conflict
With the decision as promulgated and an
bounced by the circular and letter above re-
ferred to. This decision establishes the law
in this State, that a C. o. D. order is but a
contract executory until the goods are de-
livered to the carrier and after the delivery
70 the carrier the carrier becomes the agent
of the consignee or purchaser Subject alone
o tie right Of stoppage in transitu) on de-
hvery-that after such delivery it ceases to
be executory and becomes a contract exc
cuted, final and complete. The decision OF
ex-Commissioner Evans is based upon
The hypothesis that the C. o. D..
order is but executory until q
delivery is made to the consignee or pur.
chaser, at the place of consignment, and
does not become executed until such dellv.
cry.
This seems to me to be the only question
Of moment presented by Deputy Laird's let
Ter, as the mode of consignment by bill Of
lading and draft on the consignee through
the Express Company, as suggested by the
letter, seems to me but IN evasion OF the
conclusions reached in the circular referred
to. Respectfully,
J. T. McGRAw.
Hon. Jos. S. Miller, Commissioner, WaSh-
igtoR, DC.
Following is Commissioner Miller's re-
ply:
WASHINGTON, July %, 1885.
J. T. Nc Graw, Esq, Collector Internal
Rerenue, Grafton, ". "a:
SIR:-Your letter Of the 10th instant has
been received, enclosing a letter from Dep
uty C. R. Laird, in which he submits a
question raised by a Wholesale liquor dealer,
das to the construction of the Revenue Law
in regard to sending liquor by express IN.
der the following conditions: He proposes
to send the liquor by express accompanied
by bill of lading and draft on the party
to whom the liquor is consigned. The
express agent at the place of delivery
~to:collect the draft and return the money
by express to shipper" Mr.. Laird says:
The difference from shipping c. o. D. is
that in the proposed manner of shipping,
the consignee can take the package from
the express Office upon paying express
charges and the agent merely acts as co..
lector Of draft in his hands, ETC."
You are advised and will please inform
him that if at the time Of this shipment the
agent is authorized to deliver the liquor
IL A.
should not be prepared to make immediate
payment, the ruling does not apply, and
special tax is not required to be paid at
point Of delivery; but that this special tax is
required if on the contrary the instruction
to the agent either expressed or implied are
such as to prevent the consignee from OBJ
tanning the liquor upon payment Of the
draft:
Respectfully, Jos. s. MILLER,
Commissioner.