Westfall v. Shook
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
2 [The plaintiff, in January, 1864, imported and entered at this port a quantity of gin from Rotterdam, and entered it the same month. The duty on this gin was $1 per gallon, under the act of July 14, 1862 [12 Stat. •543]. On the 29th of April, 1864, the plaintiff went to Collector Barney and tendered this money as duties, and demanded the goods.
Read the full summary
2 [The plaintiff, in January, 1864, imported and entered at this port a quantity of gin from Rotterdam, and entered it the same month. The duty on this gin was $1 per gallon, under the act of July 14, 1862 [12 Stat. •543]. On the 29th of April, 1864, the plaintiff went to Collector Barney and tendered this money as duties, and demanded the goods. The collector refused to deliver the goods, claiming that by virtue of section 7, Act March 7, 1864 [13 Stat. 16], entitled “An act to increase the internal revenue,” an excise tax of 40 cents per gallon, in addition to the above tax, was levied upon…
1Opinion of the Court
SMALLEY, District Judge.
It does not appear that the defendant made any claim for the money paid, or that he had the property in his possession, or had, or attempted to exercise, any control over it. It is urged, on the part of the plaintiff, that this tax was in violation of law because it was an impost tax, and because, if it was an internal revenue tax, the property was not in a condition to be taxed, being at the time in a bonded warehouse [net withdrawn or offered for sale.] 2
The act under which the tax is claimed is very clear- and explicit in its provisions. It is the 7th section of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Putnam v. Douglas CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1877
- De Pass v. BidwellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1903