Wright Vs. United States

Wright vs United States

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-16-1883

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84533

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/84533
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Apr-16-1883
Case Number: 108 U.S. 281
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wright

Respondent

United States

Excerpt

.....bond to recover the difference between tax assessed according to the producing capacity of the distillery and those calculated on the reports of production. the defense was that a copy of the official survey had not been served on the distillers. section 3264 of the revised statutes provides for a survey of the distillery by the collector and a written report thereof in triplicate, "of which one copy shall be delivered to the distiller, one copy shall be retained page 108 u. s. 282 by the collector, and one copy shall be transmitted to the commissioner of internal revenue, and the survey shall take effect upon the delivery of such copy to the distiller." in peabody v. stark, 16 wall. 240, it was held, following the rulings of the commissioner of internal revenue, that the distiller was not liable for the capacity tax until a copy of the survey had been delivered to him. in the present case, it appeared that no copy of the survey had ever been delivered to the distillers, but when the bond sued on was executed, the distillers signed the following endorsement, written on the report of the survey which had been made: "we hereby accept the within survey, and consider the same as binding upon us on and after this date, september 12, 1873. john b. wright. thomas tucker." the court below decided that this endorsement was in law a waiver of a delivery of a copy of the report to the distillers, and that the tax was consequently collectible. to this we agree. the language of the act is that "the survey shall take effect upon the delivery of such copy to the distiller." this is equivalent to saying that the survey shall be binding on the distiller when the copy is delivered to him. when, therefore, the distiller in this case accepted the survey and stipulated that it was binding on him, he in effect said that he would consider the survey as having effect without the formal delivery of a copy. this he might do. the judgment is affirmed. .....

Full Judgment

Wright v. United States - 108 U.S. 281 (1883)
U.S. Supreme Court Wright v. United States, 108 U.S. 281 (1883)

Wright v. United States

Decided April 16, 1883

108 U.S. 281

I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

SYLLABUS

When an endorsement is made upon a distiller's bond, "We hereby accept the within survey and consider the same as binding upon us on and after this date," which is signed by the obligees in the bond, the parties thereby waive the delivery of a copy of the survey, and the difference between the capacity of the still and the returns of production may be recovered in a suit on the bond.

Suit upon a distiller's bond to recover internal revenue tax.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action on a distiller's bond to recover the difference between tax assessed according to the producing capacity of the distillery and those calculated on the reports of production. The defense was that a copy of the official survey had not been served on the distillers. Section 3264 of the Revised Statutes provides for a survey of the distillery by the collector and a written report thereof in triplicate,

"of which one copy shall be delivered to the distiller, one copy shall be retained

Page 108 U. S. 282

by the collector, and one copy shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the survey shall take effect upon the delivery of such copy to the distiller."

In Peabody v. Stark, 16 Wall. 240, it was held, following the rulings of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that the distiller was not liable for the capacity tax until a copy of the survey had been delivered to him.

In the present case, it appeared that no copy of the survey had ever been delivered to the distillers, but when the bond sued on was executed, the distillers signed the following endorsement, written on the report of the survey which had been made: "We hereby accept the within survey, and consider the same as binding upon us on and after this date, September 12, 1873. John B. Wright. Thomas Tucker." The court below decided that this endorsement was in law a waiver of a delivery of a copy of the report to the distillers, and that the tax was consequently collectible. To this we agree. The language of the act is that "the survey shall take effect upon the delivery of such copy to the distiller." This is equivalent to saying that the survey shall be binding on the distiller when the copy is delivered to him. When, therefore, the distiller in this case accepted the survey and stipulated that it was binding on him, he in effect said that he would consider the survey as having effect without the formal delivery of a copy. This he might do.

The judgment is affirmed.

Same Parties Wright vs United States Same Subject Service Tax