Turner v. Williams

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio

Turner v. Williams

24 F. Cas. 377, 18 Int. Rev. Rec. 6

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio

DecidedJuly 1, 1873

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F. Cas. 377 (Turner v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Turner v. Williams, 24 F. Cas. 377, 18 Int. Rev. Rec. 6 (circtsdoh 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

held, following the decision of the supreme court in the case of Stevenson v Beggs [17 Wall. (84 U. S.) 182], that the distiller was liable for the amount of spirits which the survey under the 10th section of the act of July 20, 186S T15 Stat. 129]. ascertained him to be able to produce from the material used, irrespective of the [378]*378amount which he may have-in fact, produced; nor could he be permitted to show a loss of material occurring subsequently to the beginning of the process by mashing for the production of spirits; that his only remedy was an appeal to the commissioner of internal revenue, who was vested by law with the authority to allow any equitable -claims for abatement; that under the policy of the revenue laws no such power was possessed by the courts.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT

held, following the decision of the supreme court in the case of Stevenson v Beggs [17 Wall. (84 U. S.) 182], that the distiller was liable for the amount of spirits which the survey under the 10th section of the act of July 20, 186S T15 Stat. 129]. ascertained him to be able to produce from the material used, irrespective of the [378]*378amount which he may have-in fact, produced; nor could he be permitted to show a loss of material occurring subsequently to the beginning of the process by mashing for the production of spirits; that his only remedy was an appeal to the commissioner of internal revenue, who was vested by law with the authority to allow any equitable -claims for abatement; that under the policy of the revenue laws no such power was possessed by the courts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. Cas. 377, 18 Int. Rev. Rec. 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-williams-circtsdoh-1873.