Case: The United States, appellant, v. Charles M. Taylor, in his own right and as administrator of Irene M. Taylor, appellee
Abbreviation: United States v. Taylor
Decision Date: 1881-12-05
Docket Number: 
Citation: 17 Ct. Cl. 427
Volume: 17
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: The United States, appellant, v. Charles M. Taylor, in his own right and as administrator of Irene M. Taylor, appellee.
Judges: 
Pages: 427–427

Head Matter:
(14 C. Cls. R., 339; 104 U. S. R., 216.)
The United States, appellant, v. Charles M. Taylor, in his own right and as administrator of Irene M. Taylor, appellee.
On the defendants’ Appeal.
The direct-tax commissioners for the insurrectionary district of Arkansas assess a tax on real property in Little Bock. The tax not being paid, they sell the property, in May, 1865, and subsequently pay the surplus (about $3,000) into the Treasury. Jn 1874 the ownrn' applies to the Secretary of the Treasury for the surplus. The Secretary rejects the claim. More than six years after the money was paid into the Treasury, but less than six years after her demand on the Secretary, she brings this action to recover back the surplus.
The court "below decides: (1) That the provision of the Act 5th August, 1861 (12 Stat. L., 292), relating to the payment into the Treasury of the surplus of money derived from a sale of property in the insurrectionary districts for the non-payment of the direct national tax, was not necessarily repealed by the Act 7th June, 1862 (12 Stat. L., 422); (2) That the provision of the Act 7th June, 1862 (12 Stat. L., 422, § 12), which disposes of the surplus derived from certain leases and sales of property in the insurrectionary districts, must be confined to the leases and sales authorized by §§ 9 and 11. It should not be extended back to the sales authorized by previous sections. As to such sales, the surplus must be held for the owner, pursuant to the provisions of the Act 5th August, 1861 (12 Stat. L., 292); (3) That where there is a statutory duty laid on an officer of the g-overnment to pay over money on demand, such as a surplus derived from a tax sale, an implied contract to pay it over arises, and an action may be maintained in the court to recover it; (4) That where a statute provides that the surplus derived from a tax sale shall be paid into the Treasury and held until the owner makes application for it, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the Secretary refuses to pay it.
Judgment for the claimant. The defendants appeal.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Woods
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, December 5, 1881.