페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Seybert v. Pittsburg, 1 Wall. 272 34 Seymour v. McCormick, 19 How. 06

646 Shaw v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 557 158 Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361 Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441

324 Shelton v. The Collector, 5 Wall. 113

323

State, ex rel. Ecuyer, v. Burke, 83
La. Ann. 909

706 State, ex rel. Hart, o. Burke, 33 La. Ann. 498

720, 740, 764 State of New Jersey v. Wilson, ? Cranch, 164

760, 802 State of Pennsylvania r. Wheel

34

Shepherd v. People, 25 N. Y. 406 2313 ing, &c. Bridge Co. 13 How. 518 705,

244 Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 330

465 Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130 484 Shore v. Wilson, 9 Cl. & Fin. 355 441 Simpson v. Greely, 20 Wall. 162 608 Sims v. Walker, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 503

608 Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 476,

740 Sinnett v. Herbert, Law Rep. 7 Ch. 232

191 Sistermans v. Field, 9 Gray (Mass.), 331

542 Sloan v. Union Banking Company, 7 Pa. St. 470

542 Smiley v. Bell, Mart. & Y. (Tenn.) 378

214 Smith v. Braine, 16 Ad. & E. N. 8. 244

542 v. Kernochen, 7 How. 198 34 v Sac County, 11 Wall. 139 542 v. Sheeley, 12 Wall. 358 188

v. The State, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 228

284, 312 Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374 406, 622 Society for the Propagation of the

Gospel 1. Attorney-General, 3
Russ. 142

191 Spiers v. Parker, 1 T. R. 141 670 Sprott v. Reid, 3 Greene (Iowa), 489

233 St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350 645 Stafford ». Union Bank of Louisiana, 16 How. 135

387 Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 119 183 Stanton v. Embry. 93 U. S. 548

46 Conn. 595 8, 13 Stark v. Baldwin, 7 Neb. 114 465 - v. Starrs, 6 Wall. 402

844 State v. Arlin, 39 N. A. 179 r. Ball, 27 Mo. 324

225 ". Barker, 18 Vt. 195 670

r. City of Newark, 34 N. J. L. 2:36

154 r. Keith, 63 N. C. 140 231, 247 v. Norvell, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.)

225 v. Ross, 29 Mo. 32 221, 237, 238 v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538 2:38 1. Smith, 53 Mo. 139 225, 237 v. Sneed, 25 Tex. Supp. 66 231

1. Town of Union, 33 N. J. L. 350

153 State, or rel. Boyer, ". State Treasurer, 32 La. Ann. 177

752

709 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575

35 State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 204

876 Steamship. Company v. Portward. ens, 6 Wall. 3i

376, 698 Stephens v. Hill, 10 Mee. & W. 28 277,

278, 310 Stewart v. Lansing, 104 U. S. 505 542

v. ,Otoe County, 2 Neb. 177

352 Stimpson v. Woodman, 10 Wall. . 117

653 Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 82 689 Strauder r. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303

120 Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. 8. 610 346 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122

775 Sumner v. Hicks, 2 Black, 532 365 Supervisors v. Kennicott, 103 U. S. 554

390 v. United States, 18 Wall. 71

35 Suter v. Hilliard, 132 Mass. 462 185 Suydam v. Williamson, 24 How. 427; 8. c. 6 Wall. 736

34 Swift v. Smith, 102 U. S. 442 158

v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 34, 541

247

Taylor v. King, 6 Munf. (Va.) 358

482 Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257 699 v. Sneed, 96 U. S. 69 233, 776,

799, 809 Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628 775 Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119 34 The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440 500 The Adriatic, 103 U. S. 730 500 The Aline and Fanny, Spink's

Prize Cases, 322; 10 Moo. P. C. 491

78 The Amelie, 6 Wall. 18

428 The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheat. 1 79 The Annie Lindsley, 104 U. S. 185

500 The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362

80 The Aurora, 1 Wheat. 96

428 The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214 500 The Bonaparte, 8 Moore, P. C. 459

426 The Bremen Flugge, 4C Rob. 10 79 The Cassa Marittima, 2 App. Cas. 156

426 The City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 34

24

United States 0. Alexander, 12
Wall. 177

406 v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 238

675 v. Buzzo, 18 Wall. 125 671 v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611 661 v. Cisna, 1 McLean, 254 115 v. Dashiel, 3 Wall. 688 8 v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315

179 v. Hall, 2 Wash. 366; 8. C. 6 Cranch, 171

229, 235 v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196 726, 735,

.755 v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621

116 v. Mills, 7 Pet. 138

661 0. Moore, 95 U. S. 760 406 v. Morrison, 4 Pet. 124 34 v. Phelps, 20 Blatchf. 129 323 v. Pond, 2 Curt. C. C. 265 682 v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265 406, 603 v. Sherman, 98 U. S. 565 627 v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 360 661

v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61

528 v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88 451, 638

The Countess of Lauderdale, 4
C. Rob. 283

79 The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 682 The Fanny and Elmira, Edw. Adm. 117

82 The Francis Wright, 105 U. S. 381

500 The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 129 428 The Gratitudine, 3 C. Rob. 240 426 The Hamburg, 2 Moore, P. C. n. 8. 289

426 The Hendric and Alida, Marriott, 96

78 The Jungfre Maria, Marriott, 273 79 The Lilla, 2 Sprague, 177 ; 8. C. 2 Cliff. 169

82 The Lulu, 10 Wall. 192

428 The Maria, 11 Moo. P. C. 271 79 The Mary, 9 Cranch, 126

79 The Onward, Law Rep. 4 Ad. & Ec. 38

427 The Packet, 3 Mason, 255

427 The Prospérité, Marriott, 164 79 The Rosalie and Betty, 2 C. Rob. 343

79 The Second National Bank of De

troit o. Williams, 13 Mich. 282 613 The Siren, 7 Wall. 152

82 The Sir William Pep', 5 Wall. 517 78 The Soglasie, 2 S .nks, 101 ; 8. c. Spink's Prize Cases, 104

79 The State v. Chapman, 11 Ohio, 430

282 v. Foreman, 3 Mo. 412 281

v. Squire, 26 Iowa, 340 577 The Walsingham Packet, 2 C. Rob. 77

79 The Wren, 6 Wall. 582

83 Thomas v. City of Richmond, 12 Wall. 349

356 v. Osborn, 19 How. 22 428

v. Railroad Company, 101 U. S. 71

100 Thompson v. Perrine, 103 U. S. 806; 8. c. 106 id. 589

35 Thomson v. Shakespeare, R. H. V. Johns. 612; 1 D. F. & J. 399 189

v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327 34 Tillinghast v. Wheaton, 8 R. I. 536 613 Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 30 334 Town of Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U. S. 484

540 Town of South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260

35 Towne v. Rice, 122 Mass. 67 Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666

35 Transportation Company v. Wheeling, 09 U. S. 273

374 Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 418 10 Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38 61 Union Trust Company v. Souther, 107 U.S. 591

596

Vallett v. Parker, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 615

542 Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 427 644 Vannevar v. Bryant, 21 Wall. 41 547 Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 11 How. 297

34 Van Vechten v. Hopkins, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 211

663 Vathir v. Zane, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 246 642 Vattier v.

Hinde, 7 Pet. 252 758 Vicksburg v. Tobin, 100 U. S. 430

708 Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 127 167, 179 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313 117 Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535

775

Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245 484

v. Robbins, 14 How. 584 11 v. Walker, 25 Ga. 420 180 v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314 750,

774, 775, 796, 800, 810 Walton v. Cotton, 19 How. 355 68 Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 702 Water.Meter Company v. Desper, 101 U. $. 332

648 Watson v. Tarpley, 18 How. 517 34,

541 Webster v. Cooper, 14 How. 488 34 Welton v. State of Missouri, 91 U. S. 275

687, 702 Westerlo v. De Witt, 36 N. Y. 340

614 Wetter v. Habersham, 60 Ga. 193 179 Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. 55 168, 179 Whicker v. Hume, 7 H. L. Cas. 124

172 White v. Arthur, 20 Blatchf. 237 626

634

White v. Hart, 18 Wall. 646 760

v. The City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505

679 Whitney's Case, 18 Bank. Reg. 563

634 Wiggins 0. Burkham, 10 Wall. 129

334 Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, 423

80 v. Town of Roberts, 88 Ill.

555 v. Wilkes, 14 Pa. St. 228 10 Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495 34 Willis v. Brown, 2 Jur. 987 183 Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245

683 Wilson v. Wall, 6 Wall. 88 484

Wing u. Merchant, 57 Me. 883

614 Winslow v. Cummings, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 358

190 Wise v. Rogers, 24 Gratt. (Va.) 169

770 Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358

734, 750, 808 Womack v. Dearman, 7 Port. (Ala.) 513

10 Woodhull v. Holmes, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 231

542 Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190 745,

750, 803 Wright v. Wright, 1 Cow. (N. Y.)

698

11

611

Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497 609

[blocks in formation]

The court denies an application for rehearing in this case, decided at the present

term, 106 U. S. 327.

PETITION for rehearing.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. William D. Shipman, contra.

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

When this case was argued, no special claim was made for a judgment based on the currency value of the pounds sterling at the time the taxes sued for ought to have been paid, and for that reason a judgment was ordered for the present value of pounds sterling in lawful money. We are now asked to rehear the case for the purpose of considering that question.

The company was liable for taxes of five per cent on the amounts of interest paid. As the payments were all made in pounds sterling, the computations must necessarily be on that basis. Sect. 9 of the act of July 13, 1866, c. 184, made it the duty of the company to return a list of the prescribed taxes to the assessor. In making up such lists the act required that it should be declared whether the amounts were stated

VOL. XVII.

was

according to their values in legal-tender currency or in coined money. When stated in coined money, it was the duty of the assessor to reduce them to their equivalent in legal-tender currency, according to the value of coined money in currency for the time covered by the returns. All lists furnished the collectors by the assessors were required to “ contain the several amounts of taxes assessed, estimated, or valued in legal-tender currency only.”

In Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 240, it decided that a suit at law might be maintained for the recovery of a tax on interest paid, even though no list had been returned and no assessment made ; and in the opinion it was said: “No other assessment than that made by the statute was necessary to determine the extent of the bank's liability. An assessment is only determining the value of the thing taxed, and the amount of tax required of each individual. It may be made by the designated officers or by the law itself. In the present case the statute required every savings bank to pay a tax of five per cent on all undistributed earnings made, or added during the year to their contingent funds. There was no occasion or room for any other assessment.

This was a charge of a certain sum upon the bank, and without more it made the bank a debtor."

In the present case no list was returned by the company and no assessment made by the assessor. Consequently no list was ever furnished the collector, and the amount to be paid in currency was never officially ascertained. This suit is, therefore, for the debt which the company owes, to wit, five per cent of the pounds sterling it has paid as interest on its bonds. If the debt had been paid at the time it was due, the officers chargeable with the collection could have accepted nothing but legaltender currency, and to an amount equivalent to the value of the coin which was owing. In other words, the debt was in the nature of an obligation to pay in coin, but which the

government would not receive in anything but legal-tender currency of equal value with the coin. This is a suit for the recovery of that debt as a debt. If there were now any difference in value between coin and currency, it would have been proper to render the judgment for the coin or its equivalent in

« 이전계속 »