Source: https://m.openjurist.org/184/us/608
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 10:33:14
Document Index: 654008579

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 2655', '§ 3368', '§ 953', '§ 133', 'art. 1', '§ 8', '§ 3']

184 US 608 James Patton v. Maggie a Brady J D | OpenJurist
184 U.S. 608 - James Patton v. Maggie a Brady J D
184 US 608 James Patton v. Maggie a Brady J D
22 S.Ct. 493
46 L.Ed. 713
JAMES D. PATTON, Trading as J. D. Patton & Co., Plff in Err.,
MAGGIE A. BRADY, Executrix of J. D. Brady, Collector of Internal Revenue for the Second District of Virginia.
Ordered for Oral Argument May 28, 1900.
'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 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.
Messrs. William L. Royall, John W. Daniel, and Fred Harper for plaintiff in error.
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 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 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 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.
Congress has not, speaking generally, attempted to prescribe the causes which survive the death of either party. Section 955, Rev. Stat., provides that——
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 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.
'An action of trespass or trespass on the case may be maintained by or against a personal representative for the taking or carrying away any goods, or for the waste or destruction of or damage to any estate of or by his decedent.'
The term 'goods' is broad enough to include money, and as used in this statute must be held to be so inclusive, for it would be strange that a cause of action for taking and carrying away a thousand pieces of silver should survive the death of the defendant, while a like action for taking and carrying away a thousand dollars in money should not. In The Elizabeth & Jane, 2 Mason, 407, 408, Fed. Cas. No. 4,355, Mr. Justice Story said: 'It cannot be doubted that money, and, of course, foreign coin, falls within the description of 'goods' at common law.' But more than that, the estate of plaintiff was reduced to the amount of $3,000 and over by the action of decedent, and such reduction was a direct damage and comes within the rule laid down by the supreme court of appeals in Mumpower v. Bristol, 94 Va. 737, 739, 27 S. E. 581, 582, in which the court held that: 'The damages allowed to be recovered by or against a personal representative by § 2655 of the Code are direct damages to property, and not those which are merely consequent upon a wrongful act to the person only,' and in which the presiding judge of the court, delivering the opinion and showing that the act sued for was not within the scope of the statute, said:
'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.' 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.
In Schreiber v. Sharpless, 110 U. S. 76, 80, sub nom. Ex parte Schreiber, 28 L. ed. 65, 66, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423, 424, it was said:
In the chapter in the Revised Statutes on internal revenue, § 3368, it was provided that 'upon tobacco and snuff manufactured and sold, or removed for consumption or use, there shall be levied and collected the following taxes:' Then followed statements of the amounts of the prescribed taxes. Section 30 of the tariff act of 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 619, chap. 1244) reads:
'Every person having on the day succeeding the date of the passage of this act any of the above-described articles on hand for sale in excess of one thousand pounds of manufactured tobacco and twenty thousand cigars or cigarettes, and which have been removed from the factory where produced or the customhouse through which imported bearing the rate of tax payable thereon at the time of such removal, shall make a full and true return, under oath, in duplicate, of the quantity thereof, in pounds as to the tobacco and snuff and in thousands as to the cigars and cigarettes so held on that day, in such form and under such regulations as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, may prescribe. . . .'
Turning to Blackstone, vol. 1, p. 318, we find an excise defined: 'An inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, or frequently upon the retail sale, which is the last stage before the consumption.' This definition is accepted by Story in his Constitution of the United States, § 953. Cooley in his work on Taxation, page 3, defines it as 'an inland impost levied upon articles of manufacture or sale, and also upon licenses to pursue certain trades, or to deal in certain commodities.' Bouvier and Black, respectively, in their dictionaries give the same definition. If we turn to the general dictionaries, Webster's International calls it 'an inland duty or impost operating as an indirect tax on the consumer, levied upon certain specified articles, as tobacco, ale, spirits, etc., grown or manufactured in the country. It is also levied on licenses to pursue certain trades and deal in certain commodities.' The definition in the Century Dictionary is substantially the same, though in addition this is quoted from Andrews on Revenue Law, § 133: 'Excises is a word generally used in contradistinction to imposts in its restricted sense, and is applied to internal or inland impositions, levied sometimes upon the consumption of a commodity, sometimes upon the retail sale of it, and sometimes upon the manufacture of it.'
It is true other counsel in their brief have advanced a very 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 of peace and quiet, the government is powerless to make a further call upon its citizens for the contributions necessary for unexpected exigencies?
"The legislative makes, the executive executes, and the judiciary construes, the laws.' Chief Justice Marshall, in Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 46, 6 L. ed. 253, 263. The legislature must therefore determine all questions of state necessity, discretion, or policy involved in ordering a tax and in apportioning it; must make all the necessary rules and regulations which are to be observed in order to produce the desired returns, and must decide upon the agencies by means of which collections shall be made. 'The judicial tribunals of the state have no concern with the policy of legislation. That is a matter resting altogether in the discretion of another coordinate branch of the government. The judicial power cannot legitimately question the policy or refuse to sanction the provisions of any law not inconsistent with the fundamental law of the state.' Chief Justice Redfield, in Re Powers, 25 Vt. 261, 265. . . . But so long as the legislation is not colorable merely, but is confined to the enactment of what is in its nature strictly a tax law, and so long as none of the constitutional rights of the citizen are violated in the directions prescribed for enforcing the tax, the legislation is of supreme authority. Taxes may be and often are oppressive to the persons and corporations taxed; they may appear to the judicial mind unjust and even unnecessary, but this can constitute no reason for judicial interference.'
Doubtless a general tax may be cast upon property once charged with an excise; and the power to tax it as property, subject to constitutional limitations as to the mode of taxing property, might not be defeated by the fact that it has already paid an excise. But what is the difference in the nature of an excise and an ordinary property tax which forbids a repetition or increase in the one case and permits it in the other? They are each methods by which the individual is made to contribute out of his property to the support of the government, and if an ordinary property tax may be repeated or increased when the exigencies of the government may demand, no reason is perceived why an excise should not also be repeated or increased under like exigencies. Counsel speaks of the power to impose an excise as an arbitrary, unrestrained power, but the Constitution, art. 1, § 8, provides that 'all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.' The exercise of the power is, therefore, limited by the rule of uniformity. The framers of the Constitution, the people who adopted it, thought that limitation sufficient, and courts may not add thereto. That uniformity has been adjudged to be a geographical uniformity. In the Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 594, sub nom. Edye v. Robertson, 28 L. ed. 798, 802, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247, 252, it was said:
'The tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found. The tax in this case, which, as far as it can be called a tax, is an excise duty on the business of bringing passengers from foreign countries into this, by ocean navigation, is uniform, and operates precisely alike in every port of the United States where such passengers can be landed. . . . Perfect uniformity and perfect equality of taxation, in all the aspects in which the human mind can view it, is a baseless dream, as this court has said more than once. State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 612, 23 L. ed. 663, 673. Here there is substantial uniformity within the meaning and purpose of the Constitution.'
So also in the recent case of Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 106, 44 L. ed. 969. 995, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, 772.
'By the result, then, of an analysis of the history of the adoption of the Constitution, it becomes plain that the words 'uniform throughout the United States' do not signify an intrinsic, but simply a geographical, uniformity. And it also results that the assertion to which we at the outset referred, that the decision in the Head Money Cases, holding that the word 'uniform' must be interpreted in a geographical sense, was not authoritative, because that case in reality solely involved the clause of the Constitution forbidding preferences between ports, is shown to be unsound, since the preference clause of the Constitution and the uniformity clause were, in effect, in framing the Constitution, treated, as respected their operation, as one and the same thing, and embodied the same conception.'
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.