UNITED STATES
v.
HAYNES
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 dismissed the United States' appeal in a suit on an official bond against a revenue officer because the amount in dispute fell below $5,000 and the case did not qualify for the Court's appellate jurisdiction under any statutory exception. The Court held that a suit on an official bond is not an action for enforcement of federal revenue laws, and that the statutory provision allowing appeals in suits against revenue officers applies only to actions brought by individuals or corporations against such officers, not by the United States itself.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr: Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court.
The motíbn to dismiss must be granted. The amount in dispute is less than $5000; and the case does not come within any of the classes specified in § 699 of the Revised Statutes, in which this court has appellate jurisdiction without regard to. the sum or value in dispute. The only subdivisions which could possibly be supposed to cover this case are the second and third.
The second subdivision relates to judgments “ in any civil action brought by the United States for the enforcement of any revenue law thereof; ” and, as was directly adjudged in the recent case of United States v. Hill, 12 U. S. 681, a suit upon an official bond is not an action for the enforcement of a revenue law of-the United States.
The. third subdivision relates to judgments “in any civil action against any officer of the revenue, for any act done by 'him in the performance of his official duty, or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to him which shall have been paid into the Treasury.” : This applies only to suit's, whether sounding in tort or in contract, brought by individuals or corporations against officers óf the revenue acting on behalf of the United States, and does not include any suit brought by the United States against one of those officers. It has regard to actions in which the interest of the United States is as defendants, hot as plaintiffs.
Writ of' error dismissed for want of jurisdiction:
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Wright v. Millard B. Wright, 509 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…t to find another meaning.” Dickerson, The Interpretation of Statutes 229 (1975). This so-called exclusionary doctrine, notes Professor Dickerson, was invoked in Board of County Comm’rs of Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 670, 9 S.Ct. 651, 652, 32 L.Ed. 1060, 1063 (1889), where the United States Supreme Court said: If the words convey a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity, nor any contradiction of other parts of the instrument, then that meaning, apparent on the face of the instrument, must b…
-
Application of Rudolf Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927 (C.C.P.A. 1967)…ed proviso or elsewhere in section 7. To the contrary, the terms are clear, plain, and unambiguous. In such a situation it is well settled that recourse to legislative history is precluded. Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 670-671, 9 S.Ct. 651, 32 L.Ed. 1060; United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 278 U.S. 269, 277-278, 49 S.Ct. 133, 73 L.Ed. 322; Cohn & Lewis v. United States, 25 CCPA 220, 226; United States v. Kung Chen Fur Corp., 188 F. 2d 577, 584, 38 CCPA 107, 117. The “board” panel whose…
-
Stella v. Graham-Paige Motors Corp. & Kaiser-Frazer Corp., 232 F.2d 299 (2d Cir. 1956)…here is no need for courts to plumb the depths of the collective legislative mind and no power in the courts to adjust the expressed intent of Congress to its supposed objective. In the case of Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 9 S.Ct. 651, 652, 32 L.Ed. 1060, it was said, “ * * * where a law is expressed in plain and unambiguous terms, whether those terms are general or limited, the legislature should be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed, and consequently no room is left for construction…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence