UNITED STATES
v.
DAWSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in a suit on the bond of an internal revenue collector, holding that the trial court's finding that a final balance of $2,115.25 owed to the government consisted of uncollected taxes rather than money actually received by the collector was a factual determination that could not be reversed on appeal, and therefore interest at six percent per annum under the applicable statute was not properly awarded on that sum.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action on the bond of a. collector of internal revenue. After the suit was brought, amicable continuances were granted, and then several statements of account were made by the auditing officer of the government. The last of these stated a balance against the collector of $2,115.25, which was paid by his executors before final trial. The only question raised in the court below and sought to be presented here is the date from which interest should be awarded on that sum.
The counsel for the government cite section 3624 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that where any person accountable for public money neglects or refuses to pay the sum or balance found due to the United States upon adjustment by the proper officer, he shall forfeit his commissions and pay interest at six per cent per annum from the time of receiving the money.
There is no question here of the construction of the statute, but whether the balance finally found due the government was for money received by him or for something else. The case was submitted to the court without a jury, and the finding of facts by the court is part of the record.
From this it appears that about the time the collector went out of the office he paid a large sum of money, which he supposed to be all that he owed the government. But he stood charged on the books of the department with a large sum for uncollected taxes. It was the adjustment of this account which occupied the three years in which the suit was pending. Tbe court finds that the final balance of $2,115.25 was made up of these uncollected taxes, for which he was still responsible, and was not for any money actually received by the collector. Counsel for the government argue against this conclusion. But whether sound or not, it was a question of fact on which the finding of that court cannot be reversed here; and its judgment is accordingly
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Behn v. Campbell & GO Tauco, 205 U.S. 403 (U.S. 1907)…error only questions of law apparent on the record can be considered, and there can be no inquiry whether there was error in dealing with questions of fact. Wiscart v. D’Auchy, 3 Dall. 321; Generes v. Campbell, 11 Wall. 193; United States v. Dawson, 101 U. S. 569; England v. Gebhard, 112 U. S. 502; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670; Dower v. Richards, 15l U. S. 658 (where the cases are reviewed by Mr. Justice Gray); Elliott v. Toeppner, 187 U. S. 327; § 1011, Rev. Stat. The assignment of errors in the ca…
-
Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Metro. St. Ry. Co., 157 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1895)
-
Thomas Cook UK Ltd. v. Maesbury Homes, Inc., 54 C.C.A. 287 (M.D. Fla. 2012)…law in the judgment upon the facts as found by the judge or referee. The court’s findings upon questions of fact are not subject to review in the appellate court if there is any legal evidence upon which such findings could be made. U. S. v. Dawson, 101 U. S. 569, 25 L. Ed. 791; Boogher v. Insurance Co., 103 U. S. 90, 95, 26 L. Ed. 310; Miles v. U. S., 103 U. S. 304, 26 L. Ed. 481; Paine v. Railroad Co., 118 U. S. 152, 158, 6 Sup. Ct. 1019, 30 L. Ed. 193; Stanley v. Board, 121 U. S. 535, 547, 7 Sup. Ct. 1234…