United States v. Vassar
Supreme Court of the United States
Congress, by an internal revenue act of 1864, subsequently amended, enacted that no persons should be engaged in certain trades or businesses, including those of selling lottery tickets and retail dealing in liquors, until they should have obtained a “ license”* from the United States.
Read the full summary
Congress, by an internal revenue act of 1864, subsequently amended, enacted that no persons should be engaged in certain trades or businesses, including those of selling lottery tickets and retail dealing in liquors, until they should have obtained a “ license”* from the United States. By an amendatory act of 1866, the word “ special tax” was substituted in the place of the word license in the former act, A party exercising any business for which a “ license ” was necessary, or on which thé “special tax” was imposed, without having obtained the former or paid the latter, was made liable,…
1Opinion of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE,
having stated the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
In the argument of all the cases here before the court, it was strenuously maintained by counsel for the defendants that the imposition of penalties for carrying on any business prohibited by State laws, without payment for the license or special tax required by Congress, is contrary to public *469policy; and illustrations of this supposed contrariety were drawn from hypothetical cases of the license of crime for revenue.
' We will dispose of this objection before proceeding to consider the other important questions which…
2Cited by10 opinions
- (PC)Marsala v. DiazDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- Brookstone v. BaiDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1997
- Carrera v. Allied Collection Services, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 2024
- Clarence Haley v. Kintock GroupCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
- Darnel Lewis v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and CorrectionsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2019
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.