UNITED STATES
v.
NORTON
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 United States challenged the Court of Claims' judgment requiring refund of payments made for cotton transactions, claiming the payments were either involuntary or made under mutual mistake of law and thus irrecoverable. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that a presidential proclamation issued June 13, 1865, governed the transactions and that the court would not divide the day into fractions for purposes of determining when the proclamation took effect, thereby implicitly accepting that payments made under the circumstances could be recovered.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
In our opinion, this case is governed by the decision in United States v. Lapeyre (17 Wall. 191), which, although not concurred in by all the justices then composing the court, is accepted as conclusive upon the questions involved.
Under the ruling in that case, the proclamation took effect as of the beginning of June 13, 1865, and, therefore, covers all the transactions of that day to w’hich it is applicable. We do not think this is a case in which fractions of a day should be taken into account.
While the questions of whether paj'ments made under the circumstances of this case were voluntary or not, or whether, if voluntary, being made under a mutual mistake of law, can be recovered back, were not considered in the opinions filed, it is clear that the judgment rendered could not have been given, unless they had been decided adversely to the United States.
Judgment affirmed.
Note. — United States v. Ceif’s Assignee, United States v. Levy, United Stales v. Rowan, United States v. Yorke, United States v. White, United States v. Bonnafon, and United States v. Ethel’s Assignee, appeals from the Court of Claims, were also submitted at the same time and by the same-counsel as was the preceding case. The first four involved similar facts to that case. In the remaining cases, the cotton was shipped to New Orleans from “ States in insurrection" June 26 and June 27, 1865, and the payment made in ignorance of the President’s proclamation of June 24, 1865. Mr. Chief Justice Waite, in delivering the opinion of the court, remarked, that they were all governed by the decision in the immediately preceding case, and that the judgment in each case was
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McElrath v. United States, 102 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1880)…ice did not attach until he -received his commission on the thirteenth day of July, 1866, on which day, and from the first moment of that day, — as is claimed upon the authority of United States v. Lapeyre (17 Wall. 191) and United States v. Norton (97 U. S. 164), — it was the law that “no officer of the [*438] military or naval service shall, in time of peace, be dismissed from service, except upon and in pursuance of the sentence of a court-martial to that effect; or in commutation thereof.” Act of July 1…
-
Louisville v. Sav. Bank, 104 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1881)…tion of law now before us. The language quoted from the opinion must, therefore, be taken as a declaration of the general rule which obtains when the evidence does not show the necessity of. regarding fractions of a day. In United States v. Norton (97 U. S. 164), the court, while declaring, upon the authority of Lapeyre v. United States, that the President’s proclamation of June 13, 1865, removing all restrictions upon internal, domestic, and coastwise intercourse and trade, took effect as of the beginning…
-
Carr v. City of Memphis, 22 F.2d 678 (6th Cir. 1927)…[2, 3] The exceptions to the general rule that money voluntarily paid under mistake of law cannot be recovered, have no applies tion to the recovery of taxes paid to the public authorities, in the absence of an authorizing statute. U. S. v. Norton, 97 U. S. 164, 24 L. Ed. 907; Railroad Co. v. Commissioners, 98 U. S. 541, 25 L. Ed. 196; Chesebrough v. U. S., 192 U. S. 253, 24 S. Ct. 262, 48 L. Ed. 432; Gulbenkian v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 175 F. 860; Cooley’s Law of Taxation (4th Ed.) §§ 1282, 1294. The recovery…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137 (U.S. 1836)
- Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 269 (U.S. 1868)
- Gardner v. The Collector, 6 Wall. 499 (U.S. 1867)
- Lapeyre v. United States, 17 Wall. 191 (U.S. 1872)
- United States v. Weed, 5 Wall. 62 (U.S. 1866)