Case: HOFFHEIMER BROS. v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Hoffheimer Bros. v. United States
Decision Date: 1885-06-01
Docket Number: No. 14581
Citation: 20 Ct. Cl. 371
Volume: 20
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: HOFFHEIMER BROS. v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 371–373

Head Matter:
HOFFHEIMER BROS. v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 14581.
Decided June 1, 1885.]
On the Proofs.
The Secretary of the Treasury decides that the claimants’ distilled spirits on which a tax has been paid have been destroyed by casualty while in the custody of an officer of the internal revenue; and he orders a rer fund.
The Secretary of the Treasury has jurisdiction, under the Bevi sed Statutes, J 3221, of claims for refund founded on the actual destruction by casualty of distilled spirits in the custody of an officer of internal revenue, and his decision is final and conclusive.
The Reporters’ statement of the case:
The following are the facts as found by the court:
I. The firm of Hoffheimer Bros., of Cincinnati, Ohio, made application to the Secretary of the Treasury to refund to them $288 paid by them as taxes on 320 gallons of distilled spirits, the said taxes having been assessed against them by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
II. The Secretary found that the spirits on which the said tax was paid, before the payment of the tax, had been destroyed by casualty, without fraud, collusion, or negligence on the part of the owners thereof, and that at the time of their destruction they were in a distillery warehouse and in the custody of an officer of internal revenue, and ordered that the said sum of $288 should be refunded to claimants.
III. At the time of their destruction the said spirits were in distillery warehouse No. 4, in the first internal-revenue district of Ohio, and in the custody of the internal-revenue officers of that district.
IV. The accounting officers of the Treasury refused to allow the said sum to claimants.
V. The owners were not indemnified against the tax by a valid claim for insurance.
Messrs. Abraham, & Mayer for the claimants.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Simons for the defendants.

Opinion:
Weldon, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This claim originated from the fact that the Comptroller refused to recognize the validity of the act of the Secretary of the Treasury in allowing the claimants the sum of $288 under section 322Í of the Revised Statutes, giving the Secretary the right to refund taxes paid by parties on distilled spirits destroyed by accident, without the fault, collusion, or negligence of the owner.
Section 3221 of the Revised Statutes, under which the Secretary acted, is as follows:
"The Secretary of the Treasury, upon the production to him of satisfactory proof of the actual destruction by accidental fire or other casualty, and without any fraud, collusion, or negligence of the owner thereof, of any distilled spirits, while the same remained in the custody of any officer of internal revenue in any distillery warehouse or bonded warehouse of the United States, and before the tax thereon has been paid, may abate the amount of internal taxes accruing thereon, and may cancel any warehouse bond, or enter satisfaction thereon, in whole or in part, as the case may be. And if such taxes have been collected since the destruction of said spirits, the said Secretary shall refund the same to the owners thereof out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated."
The facts show that on the 1st day of March, 1884, the claimants paid the government $288 as tax on spirits, which before that time had been destroyed by an overflow of the Ohio Eiver, while in the possession of a collector of internal revenue in the first district of Ohio, without fraud, collusion, or negligence on the part of the claimants.
The findings bring the case within thé letter and purpose of the law, the facts gave the Secretary full and complete jurisdiction, and his decision is final and conclusive.
This court has substantially decided the principle of this ease in the following:
Kaufman Case (11 C. Cls. R., 659), affirmed on appeal (96 U. S. R., 567); Savings Bank of Pittsburgh v. United States (16 C. Cls. R., 335), affirmed on appeal (104 U. S. R., 728); Woolner Case (13 C. Cls. R., 355); Greencastle Bank (15 C. Cls. R., 225); McKnight (13 C. Cls. R., 291); Nixon's Case (18 C. Cls. R., 449); Sybrandt's Case (19 C. Cls. R., 461).
Judgment will be entered for the sum of $288.