Lowe v. Farbwerke-Hoechst Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action by the Earbwerke-Hoechst Company against John Z. Lowe, Jr., as Collector of Internal Revenue for the Second District of New York. There was a for and defendant error. The plaintiff below, hereinafter called the Farbwerke, is an importer and dealer, if not a manufacturer, of many drugs.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action by the Earbwerke-Hoechst Company against John Z. Lowe, Jr., as Collector of Internal Revenue for the Second District of New York. There was a for and defendant error. The plaintiff below, hereinafter called the Farbwerke, is an importer and dealer, if not a manufacturer, of many drugs. Dowe is a collector of internal revenue, and under the provisions of the act of December 17, 1914, commonly known as the Harrison Act, required the Farbwerke to pay the special tax at the rate of $1 per annum…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] It cannot now be questioned in any lower court that the Harrison Act is a revenue measure or tax law and- is to be construed as such. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 36 Sup. Ct. 658, 60 L. Ed. 1061, a decision which deprives of authority the judgment of this court in Wilson v. United States, 229 Fed. 344, 143 C. C. A. 464. This being the ruling, it makes no difference that the history of the statute as revealed by public discussions, reports of committees and contemporaneous common knowledge, proves that nothing was further from the mind…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. Jin Fuey MoySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- United States v. StowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Wilson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
- Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1900
3Cited by4 opinions
- Greenberg v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
- Trinity Portland Cement Co. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
- United States v. DoremusDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 1918
- Hutton v. TerrillDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1918