Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/184/608.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:51:31+00:00

Document:
'After the act of Congress approved June 13, 1898, entitled 'An Act to Provide Ways and Means to Meet War and Other Expenditures, and for Other Purposes,' had been enacted, the defendant, James D. Brady, who is the collector of internal revenue for the second district of the state of Virginia, in which he and plaintiff reside, and in the month of June, 1898, demanded of plaintiff that he pay the sum of $3,062.28 as an additional tax to be paid upon said tobacco, which he claimed was imposed upon the same by the 2d paragraph of the 3d section of said act. Plaintiff refused to pay the same; whereupon the defendant threatened plaintiff that unless he did [184 U.S. 608, 610] pay it he would treat plaintiff as a delinquent, and would seize his property under the provisions of an act of Congress applicable to such case, and would sell the same. Under the coercion of this demand and threat plaintiff paid the sum of $3,062.28 to the defendant, but he did so under protest, and with notice to the defendant that he would sue him to recover it back.
'Plaintiff avers that said 3 of said act of June 13, 1898, imposing said additional tax upon his tobacco, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and said acts of Congress authorizing the defendant to seize plaintiff's property and sell it if he did not pay the same are also repugnant to said Constitution, and that his suit therefore arises under the Constitution of the United States.
Summons having been served, the case came on for hearing on the motion of the United States attorney for the district to dismiss the action on the ground that the act of Congress set forth in the declaration was not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which motion was sustained, and on September 22, 1899, the action was dismissed. To review such ruling plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
Messrs. William L. Royall, John W. Daniel, and Fred Harper for plaintiff in error. [184 U.S. 608, 611] Assistant Attorneys General James E. Boyd and James M. Beck, and Solicitor General Richards for defendant in error.
The first contention of the defendant is that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction. The parties, it is true, were both citizens of Virginia, but the question presented in the declaration was the constitutionality of an act of Congress. The plaintiff's right of recovery was rested upon the unconstitutionality of the act, and that was the vital question. The circuit courts of the United States 'have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity . . . arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.' 25 Stat. at L. 433, chap. 866.
That a case arises under the Constitution of the United States when the right of either party depends on the validity of an act of Congress is clear. It was said by Chief Justice Marshall that 'a case in law or equity consists of the right of the one party, as well as of the other, and may truly be said to arise under the Constitution or a law of the United States whenever its correct decision depends on the construction of either' (Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 379, 5 L. ed. 257, 285); and again, when 'the title or right set up by the party may be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or law of the United States, and sustained by the opposite construction.' Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 822, 6 L. ed. 204, 224. See also Little York Gold-Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U.S. 199, 201 , 24 S. L. ed. 656, 658; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257 , 25 L. ed. 648; White v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 307 , 29 L. ed. 199, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 923, 962; New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U.S. 135, 139 , 26 S. L. ed. 96, 98. In the latter case the following statement of the controversy was given in the opinion: 'From this analysis of the pleadings, and of the petition for removal, it will be observed that the contention of the state rests in part upon the ground that the construction and maintenance of the bridge in question is in violation of the condition on which Mississippi was admitted into the Union, and inconsistent with the engagement, on the [184 U.S. 608, 612] part of the United States, as expressed in the act of March 1, 1817. On the other hand, the railroad company, in support of its right to construct and maintain the present bridge across Pearl river, invokes the protection of the act of Congress passed March 2, 1868.' And upon these facts it was held that the case was rightfully removed to the Federal court. Within these decisions obviously the circuit court had jurisdiction.
A second contention of the defendant is this: After the case had been brought to this court the defendant, J. D. Brady, died. Whereupon the plaintiff took steps to revive the action, and on November 4, 1901, Maggie A. Brady, the executrix of the deceased, was substituted as party defendant. Now it is insisted that the action was one based upon a tort, and, as such, abated by reason of the death of defendant.
This does not define the causes which survive. In the absence of some special legislation the question in each case must be settled by the common law or the law of the state in which the cause of action arose. United States v. Daniel, 6 How. 11, 12 L. ed. 323; Henshaw v. Miller, 17 How. 212, 15 L. ed. 222; Schreiber v. Sharpless, 110 U.S. 76 , sub nom. Ex parte Schreiber, 28 L. ed. 65, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423; Martin v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 151 U.S. 673 , sub nom. Gerling v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 38 L. ed. 311, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Joy, 173 U.S. 226, 229 , 43 S. L. ed. 677, 678, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387. It matters not whether we consider the common law or the statute law of Virginia as controlling. By either the cause of action stated in the complaint survived the death of defendant.
'The wrongful act which the defendant is alleged to have committed, and for the injury resulting from which the plaintiff sues, consisted in maliciously and without probable cause suing out an injunction against the plaintiff, whereby the operation of his mill was suspended. It is quite obvious that this injunction did not operate to take or carry away the goods of the plaintiff, nor cause the waste or destruction of, or inflict any damage upon, the estate of the plaintiff. It is true that the language of the statute is comprehensive, and embraces damage of any kind or degree to the estate, real or personal, of the person aggrieved; but the damage must be direct, and not the consequential injury or loss to the eatate which flows from a wrongful act directly affecting the person only. No part of the defendant's property was taken or carried away; no part of it was wasted or destroyed. The plaintiff's use of his property, and not the property itself, was affected by the act of which he complains.' [184 U.S. 608, 614] See also Ferrill v. Brewis, 25 Gratt. 765, 770, and Lee v. Hill, 87 Va. 497, 12 S. E. 1052.
'Appropriate remedy to recover back money paid under protest on account of duties or taxes erroneously or illegally assessed is an action of assumpsit for money had and received. Where the party voluntarily pays the money he is without remedy; but if he pays it by compulsion of law, or under protest, or with notice that he intends to bring suit to test the validity of the claim, he may recover it back, if the assessment was erroneous or illegal, in an action of assumpsit for money had and received.' Philadelphia v. The Collector, 5 Wall. 720, 731, sub nom. Philadelphia v. Diehl, 18 L. ed. 614, 616. See also Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 , 45 L. ed. 1074, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 762. [184 U.S. 608, 615] It is true there are one or two sentences in the declaration appropriate to an action sounding in tort, such as the one last quoted, in which the pleader alleges that 'by all of which acts and doings the plaintiff is damaged $6,000, and therefore he sues.' But nevertheless the substance of the charge is that the defendant wrongfully took from plaintiff the sum of $3,062.28. By virtue thereof there was an implied promise on the part of the defendant to repay the same, and that implied promise lies at the foundation of the action.
For these reasons, and under these authorities, we are of opinion that this cause of action survived the death of the defendant, and was rightfully revived in the name of his executrix.
We pass, therefore, to consider the merits of the case, and here the first question is, What is the nature of the tax? Obviously it was intended by Congress as an excise.
'Sec. 3. That there shall, in lieu of the tax now imposed by law, be levied and collected a tax of twelve cents per pound upon all tobacco and snuff, however prepared, manufactured, and sold, or removed for consumption or sale. . . .
'And there shall also be assessed and collected, with the exceptions hereinafter in this section provided for, upon all the articles enumerated in this section which were manufactured, imported, and removed from factory or customhouse before the passage of this act bearing tax stamps affixed to such articles for the payment of the taxes thereon, and canceled subsequent to April fourteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and which articles were at the time of the passage of this act held and intended for sale by any person, a tax equal to one half the difference between the tax already paid on such articles at the time of removal from the factory or customhouse and the tax levied in this act upon such articles.
Ever since the early part of the Civil War there has been a body of legislation, gathered in the statutes under the title Internal Revenue, by which, upon goods intended for consumption, excises have been imposed in different forms at some time intermediate the beginning of manufacture or production and the act of consumption. Among the articles thus subjected to those excises have been liquors and tobacco, appropriately selected therefor on the ground that they are not a part of the essential food supply of the nation, but are among its comforts and luxuries. The first of these acts, passed on July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. at L. 432, chap. 119), in terms provided for 'the collection of internal duties, stamp duties, licenses, or taxes imposed by this act,' and included manufactured tobacco of all descriptions. Subsequent statutes changed the amount of the charge, the act of 1890 reducing it to 6 cents a pound. Then came the act in question, which, for the purpose of providing means for the expenditures of the Spanish War, increased the charge to 12 cents a pound, specifying distinctly that it was to be 'in lieu of the tax now imposed by law.' Nothing can be clearer than that in these various statutes, the last included among the number, Congress was intending to keep alive a body of excise charges on tobacco, spirits, etc. It may be that all the taxes enumerated in these various statutes were not excises, but the great body of them, including the tax on tobacco, were plainly excises within any accepted definition of the term.
Some of these definitions were quoted with approval by this court in the Income Tax Cases, and while the phraseology is not the same in all, yet so far as the particular tax before us is concerned, each of them would include it. The tax on manufactured tobacco is a tax on an article manufactured for consumption, and imposed at a period intermediate the commencement of manufacture and the final consumption of the article.
It is true other counsel in their brief have advanced a very [184 U.S. 608, 619] elaborate and ingenious argument to show that this is a direct tax upon property which must be apportioned according to population within the rule laid down in the Income Tax Cases, but, as we have seen, it is not a tax upon property as such, but upon certain kinds of property, having reference to their origin and their intended use. It may be, as Dr. Johnson said, 'a hateful tax levied upon commodities;' an opinion evidently shared by Blackstone, who says, after mentioning a number of articles that had been added to the list of those excised, 'a list which no friend to his country would wish to see further increased.' But these are simply considerations of policy, and to be determined by the legislative branch, and not of power, to be determined by the judiciary. We conclude, therefore, that the tax which is levied by this act is an excise, properly so called, and we proceed to consider the further propositions presented by counsel.
It is insisted: 'That Congress may excise an article as it pleases, so that the excise does not amount to spoliation or confiscation. But that having excised it, it has excised it, and the power is exhausted. It cannot excise a second time.' But why should the power of imposing an excise tax be exhausted when once exercised? It must be remembered that taxes are not debts in the sense that having once been established and paid all further liability of the individual to the government has ceased. They are, as said in Cooley on Taxation, p. 1: 'The enforced proportional contribution of persons and property, levied by the authority of the state for the support of the government and for all public needs,' and so long as there exists public needs just so long exists the liability of the individual to contribute thereto. The obligation of the individual to the state is continuous and proportioned to the extent of the public wants. No human wisdom can always foresee what may be the exigencies of the future, or determine in advance exactly what the government must have in order 'to provide for the common defense' and 'promote the general welfare.' Emergencies may arise; wars may come unexpectedly; large demands upon the public may spring into being with little forewarning; and can it be that having made provision for times [184 U.S. 608, 620] of peace and quiet, the government is powerless to make a further call upon its citizens for the contributions necessary for unexpected exigencies?
So also in the recent case of Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 106 , 44 S. L. ed. 969. 995, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, 772.
Neither can it be said that the change in the ownership of the tobacco in the case at bar had placed it beyond the reach of an excise. It is true that it had passed from the manufacturer, but it had not reached the consumer. By 3 of the statute the charge is placed upon articles which 'were at the time of the passage of this act held and intended for sale,' and this tobacco was purchased and held for sale by the plaintiff. Within the scope of the various definitions we have quoted there can be no doubt that the power to excise continues while the consumable articles are in the hands of the manufacturer or any intermediate dealer, and until they reach the consumer.
The act in controversy, so far as the charge upon this plaintiff is concerned, is constitutional; and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. [184 U.S. 608, 624] Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Gray took no part in the decision of this case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.