Case: CONRAD HEINSZEN AND GUSTAVE BROCKMAN, TRADING AS PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF C. HEINSZEN & CO., v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Heinszen v. United States
Decision Date: 1907-05-27
Docket Number: 
Citation: 42 Ct. Cl. 536
Volume: 42
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: CONRAD HEINSZEN AND GUSTAVE BROCKMAN, TRADING AS PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF C. HEINSZEN & CO., v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 536–537

Head Matter:
CONRAD HEINSZEN AND GUSTAVE BROCKMAN, TRADING AS PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF C. HEINSZEN & CO., v. THE UNITED STATES.
[42 C. Cls. R., 58; 206 U. S. R., 370.]
On the defendants’ Appeal.
The above suit, brought July 1, 1902, to recover back duties exacted in the Philippine Islands bjr the military authorities on goods imported from the United States into the port of Manila between April 11, 1899, and November 15, 1901, was first decided by the court below on demurrer January 7, 1907, and subsequently, on January 23, 1907, upon the stipulation of the parties as to the facts, judgment was entered in favor of the claimants in the sum of $10,827.31.
The court below decides:
1. That the United States are the proper party defendant in a suit to recover back duties exacted by the military authorities in the Philippine Islands in 1899 and 1901 must have been considered and was impliedly decided by the Supreme Court in Warner. Barnes é Co. The duties were collected by their military authorities, and not by the authorities of the Philippine Islands.
2. It has also been impliedly decided by the Supreme Court that the payment of such duties was not a voluntary payment and that they may be recovered back, though paid without protest.
3. The Act 30th June, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 636), validating tariff duties imposed by the authorities of the United States in the Philippine Islands prior to March 8, 1902, can not take away or impair a right of action, then in suit, to recover back such duties exacted without authority of law. So far as the act seeks to do so it is unconstitutional.
4. Retrospective statutes relating to defects in tax proceedings can extend only to such defects as are in the nature of irregularities ; they can not cure defects in matter of authority or jurisdiction, and should be confined to proceedings which the legislatures, by a prior statute, might have dispensed with. The eases and authorities dealing with curative and retrospective legislation fully reviewed.
The decision of the court below is reversed upon the grounds that the mere bringing of the action did not deprive Congress of its power to ratify the collections made by its officers in the ñame of the United States of the moneys sought to be recovered.
May 27, 1907.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court