Case: JANE M. McKEE, in her own right and as executor or Henry McKee v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: McKee ex rel. McKee v. United States
Decision Date: 1896-11-30
Docket Number: 
Citation: 32 Ct. Cl. 612
Volume: 32
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: JANE M. McKEE, in her own right and as executor or Henry McKee v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
JANE M. McKEE, in her own right and as executor or Henry McKee v. THE UNITED STATES.
[Not reported in C. Cls. R.;
164 U. S., 287.]
On the claimant’s Appeal.
This case was decided on the authority of Sams v. The United States (27 C. Cls. R., 266). In that case the claimants were the owners of land in the parish of St. Helena, S. C., sold under the direct-tax acts. They brought their suit for the relief given by the act 2d March, 1891. The only question involved is whether they may recover an excess of the tax now in the Treasury, in addition to the $5 per acre or $1 per acre likewise given by the statute.
The court below decides:
1. The Act 2d March, 1891 (26 Stat. L., 822, § 4), provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to “the legal oionei- of such lands as were sold in the parishes of St. Selena and St. Lulee” of lands rated as “ being usually cultivated” $5 per acre, “ of all other lands” $1 per acre. “And provided further, That any sumor sums of money received into the Treasury of the United States from the sale of lands bid in for taxes in any State” “in excess of the tax assessed thereon shall be paid to the owners of the land.” The last provision does not extend to the parishes of St. Helena and St. Luke.
2. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation that where a statute makes a special provision and also a general provision, the latter is neither a repeal of the former, nor an addition to it.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the grounds on which it decided the Sams Case.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Peckhaai
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, November 30, 1896.