Court Opinion

ID: 9418494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:27:31.479802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.309644
License: Public Domain

*563Mr. Justice Brandéis,
dissenting, with whom
Mr. Justice Pitney concurs.
The suit is in equity. So far as appears, the plaintiff had a full, adequate and complete remedy at law; and there was no danger of irreparable injury. The relief should, therefore, be denied, whatever the. construction of § 35, Title II, of the Volstead Act, and even if it be deemed unconstitutional. Compare Bailey v. George, ante, 16.
Plaintiff describes himself as a retail liquor dealer in Philadelphia who had paid the federal special tax for the year ending June 30, 1920, and held a license under the Brooks Law which did not expire until May 31, 1921. On December 29, 1920, he was arrested under § 2, Title II, of the Volstead Act for illegally selling liquor; and the prosecution is still pending. On. March 18, 1921, he received from the Collector of Internal Revenue a “ Notice and Demand for Tax ”; and on March 31, 1921, a second notice. By the latter he was informed that, if he did not pay the alleged tax within ten days, collection would be made by seizure and sale of his property. The amount demanded is $557.29, made'up of three items: one for $45.83 for double tax under said § 35; another of $11.46 called penalty under § 3244 of the Revised Statutes; and a. further amount of $500.00 “ special penalty ” under said § 35. This suit against the Collector was commenced May 25, 1921. The plaintiff says that there is in law no authority to levy this alleged tax and the penalties; that the claim is in fact not for a tax, but for fines;, that the so-called “ Notice and Demand for Tax ” is in fact an attempt to inflict punishment without a hearing and without judicial trial; “ and that he is wholly without adequate remedy at law to prevent such seizure o.f his property.”
The claim is for a small sum. For aught that appears plaintiff might readily pay it under protest and bring an *564action against the Collector to recover the amount paid. If he does not wish to pay, he can let the distraint be made and then sue for the trespass incident to wrongful distraint. And if personal property should be seized, he may replevy it. There is in the bill no allegation that the plaintiff is unable to pay the small amount claimed by the Government; nor of fraud or oppression or abuse of process oh the part of the Collector; nor that a cloud will be cast upon title to real estate; nor that the property subject to distraint is of such a character that if dis-trained it will, be sacrificed; nor that a proceeding in equity is necessary to prevent multiplicity of suits.
If the sum assessed against the plaintiff is a tax legally due, distraint by the Collector is a permissible and long sanctioned method of collection. Revised Statutes, §§ 3187-3216; Hartman v. Bean, 99 U. S. 393, 397; Blacklock v. United States, 208 U. S. 75. Compare Scottish Union & National Insurance Co. v. Bowland, 196 U. S. 611, 632. If it is in its nature a tax, but is claimed to be an unconstitutional one,, still, particularly in view of Rev. Stats. § 3224, suit will not lie to restrain its collection. Snyder v. Marks, 109 U. S. 189; Dodge v. Osborn, 240 U. S. 118. And if the contention is that the Government’s demand is not for a tax at all, but for a fine, and that, therefore, Congress lacks power to. confer upon the Collector authority to collect it by. distraint, still- equity should not grant relief, because the bill fails to allege any fact showing that'.the legal remedy would not be adequate or that there is danger of-irreparable injury.1 Whether the Government’s demand be deemed one for a fine or for a tax *565which is unconstitutional, legal remedies are available; and there is, therefore, lack of jurisdiction in equity. We have here, at the worst, the case of a threatened distraint which it is contended will be wrongful if made; a case not differing in substance from wrongful distraint by landlords or other wrongful distraint by tax collectors; and not differing in substance from wrongful attachment. .In all these cases, as has long been settled, the owner of the property of which seizure is threatened is not entitled to relief in equity, unless it appears that there, is no plain, adequate and complete remedy at law.
Whether the action of the Government is lawful depends upon the construction of a statute; and on this question the lower courts have differed. As was said by. this court in Arkansas Building & Loan Association v. Madden, 175 U. S. 269, 274: “ It is quite possible that in cases of this sort the validity , of a law may be more conveniently tested, by the party denying it, by a bill in equity than by an action at law; but considerations of that character, while they may explain, do not justify, resort to that mode of proceeding.” If the Government is proceeding without warrant in law; the plaintiff should, of course, have redress. An early determination of the constitutional question presented would be desirable. But, in my opinion, we cannot properly decide it in this case.

 Compare Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; Shelton v. Platt, 139 U. S. 591; Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. v. Board of Public Works, 172 U. S. 32; Arkansas Building & Loan Association v. Madden, 175 U. S. 269; Indiana Manufacturing Co. v. Koehne, 188 U. S. 681; Boise Artesian Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 276; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Benedict, 229 U. S. 481.