Case: PIERCE v. UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES v. PIERCE
Abbreviation: Pierce v. United States
Decision Date: 1914-02-24
Docket Number: No. 2; Nos. 65, 624
Citation: 232 U.S. 292
Volume: 232
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: PIERCE v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. PIERCE.
Judges: 
Pages: 292–293

Head Matter:
PIERCE v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. PIERCE.
(NO. 2).
Nos. 65, 624.
error to the circuit court of the united states FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
Argued January 6, 7, 1914.
Decided February 24, 1914.
Decided on authority of Pierce v. United States, ante, p. 290.
190 Fed. Rep. 359, reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. William D. Guthrie for the yacht owner in this and other cases argued simultaneously herewith.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Adkins, with whom Mr. Karl W. Kirchwey was on the brief, for the United States. -
See argument, p. 263, ante.
See argument, p. 269, ante.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases concern the right to recover a tax on the yacht Yacona, becoming due on the first of September, 1910. The complaint filed by the United States in No. 65 was in substance like that filed in the previous cases and the answer in effect set up the same defenses, especially the defense relating to the non-use of the yacht. The case, by stipulation, was submitted to the court without a jury, a finding of facts was made which distinctly established the non-use during the taxing year and the court gave a judgment for the tax, although it rejected the interest, upon the same construction of the act which it applied in the previous cases. The certificate in this as in the other cases is here in consequence of error prosecuted by the United States to the Circuit Court of Appeals, because of the rejection of the interest claimed. Treating this case as we treated the others and applying the construction in those cases given, it follows that the judgment in this case must be reversed.
And it is so ordered.