United States v. Eaton

144 U.S. 677, 12 S. Ct. 764, 36 L. Ed. 591, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2118, 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2542
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 25, 1892
Docket291
StatusPublished
Cited by199 cases

This text of 144 U.S. 677 (United States v. Eaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Eaton, 144 U.S. 677, 12 S. Ct. 764, 36 L. Ed. 591, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2118, 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2542 (1892).

Opinion

Me. Justice Blatci-ifoed,

after stating the cáse, delivered the opinion of the court.

*683 Sections 1 and 2 of the act in question define what is “ butter ” and what is “ oleomargarine.”

Section 3 imposes special taxes of certain amounts on manufacturers of oleomargarine, on wholésale dealers therein, and on retail dealers therein.

Section 4 imposes a penalty, on manufacturers, wholesale dealers, and retail. dealers, for carrying on those respective businesses without having paid the special tax therefor.

' Section 5 provides that every manufacturer of oleomargarine shall file with the collector of internal revenue of the district in which his manufactory is located, such notices, inventories and bonds, shall keep such books, render such returns of materials and products, put up such signs, affix such number to his factory, and conduct his business under such surveillance of officers and agents', as the Commissioner of Internal Kevenue, vjth the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, may, by regulation, require. But that section imposes no penalty for a non-compliance with its provisions.

Section 6 contains requirements in regard to the packing of oleomargarine by manufacturers, and in regard to the packages in which sales shall be made by manufacturers, wholesale dealers and retail dealers, and imposes a penalty for the viola-. tion of its requirements.

Section 7 contains requirements as tp putting a labei on each package by the manufacturer, and imposes a penalty for not doing it.

Section 8 provides for collecting a tax of two cents a pound on the article from the manufacturer by coupon stamps, and applies the requirements of law as to stamps relating to tobacco and snuff.

Section 9 provides for assessing and collecting the tax which has not been paid by stamps, and declares that such tax shall" be in addition to the penalties imposed by law for the sale or removal of the article without the payment of such tax.

Section 10 provides for an additional tax on imported oleomargarine, by stamps to be affixed and cancelled while it is in the custody of custom officers, and for warehousing the article; and it imposes a penalty for a 'violation of the section by a *684 customs officer, and a penalty for selling or offi ' ig for sale imported oleomargarine ^not put up in packages and stamped ás provided by the act.'

Section 11 imposes a penalty for purchasing or receiving for sale any oleomargarine not branded or stamped according to law, and § 12 a penalty for purchasing the article or receiving it for sale from a manufacturer who has not paid the special ■tax.

Section 13 requires the destruction of stamps on packages which have been emptied, and imposes a penalty for the failure to do so.

Section 'll.provides for the appointment of chemists and microscopists, and authorizes the' Commissioner of Internal, Eevenue to decide what articles are taxable under the act, and what substances made in imitation or- semblance of butter, and intended for human consumption, contain ingredients deleterious to the public health, and also provides for appeals from the- decision of the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue to a board of three officers,' whose decision shall be final.

Section 15 provides for the forfeiture of packages which are not stamped, and of packages intended for human consumption which contain ingredients so adjudged to be deleterious to the public health, and imposes a penalty for removing or defacing stamps, marks or brands on packages containing oleomargarine taxed as-provided in the act.

Section 16. contains a provision for the export of oleomargarine to a foreign country without-the payment of tax or affixing stamps, under regulations to be made by the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue, with the .approval of the Secretary' of the Treasury, and for the branding 'of the exported packages ; but it prescribes no penalties.

- Section 17 provides that if any manufacturer of oleomargarine defrauds or attempts to defraud the United States of the tax thereon, he shall forfeit the factory, manufacturing apparatus, and all oleomargarine and raw material found in the' factory and on the premises, and be fined and imprisoned as provided in that section. '

Section 18 is as follows: “ That if any manufacturer of oleo *685 margarine, any dealer therein or any importer or exporter thereof shall knowingly or wilfully omit, neglect or refuse to do, or cause to be donp, any of the things required'by law in the carrying on or conducting of his business, or shall do anything by this act prohibited, if there be no specific penalty or punishment imposed by any other section of this act for the neglecting, omitting or refusing to do, or for. the doing or causing to be done, the thing required or prohibited, he shall pay a penalty of one thousand dollars; and if the person so offending be the manufacturer of or a wholesale dealer in oleomargarine, all the oleomargarine owned by him, or in which he has any interest as owner, shall be forfeited to the United States.”

Section 19 provides “ that all fines, penalties and forfeitures imposed by this act may be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction; ” and section 20 “ that the Commissioner of Internal ¡Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, may make all needful regulations for the carrying into effect of this act.”

Section 21 is unimportant as regards this case.

It is stated in the brief of the. Assistant Attorney General, counsel for the United States, that one. of the regulations of August 25, 1886, named in the two counts of the indictment,' and claimed to be applicable to the present case, was as-follows : “ Wholesale dealers in oleomargarine will keep a book (Form 61) and make a monthly return on Form 217, showing the .oleomargarine received by them, and from' whom received; also, the oleomargarine disposed of by them and to whom sold or delivered ; ” that that regulation covers the two counts of; the indictment and the two questions» .certified; and. that Form 61, so referred to, is a form for a record'in a book, and Form 217 is one for the monthly return; and it is claimed that such regulation was properly made under § 20 of the act.

It is provided by •§ 41 of the act approved October 1, 1800 c. 1244, entitled “ An act to reduce the revenue and equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes,” 26 Stat; 567, .621, “that wholesale dealers in oleomargarine shall keep such books and render such returns in relation thereto as the Cow *686 missioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, may, by regulation, require, and such books shall be open at all times to the inspection of any internal revenue officer or agent.” - '

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

Related

Damien Guedes v. ATF
D.C. Circuit, 2019
United States v. Nichols
784 F.3d 666 (Tenth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Yuri Izurieta
710 F.3d 1176 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Alghazouli
517 F.3d 1179 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Richard M. Mitchell
39 F.3d 465 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Anderson v. Gladden
188 F. Supp. 666 (D. Oregon, 1960)
Corley G. Newman v. United States
277 F.2d 794 (Fifth Circuit, 1960)
United States v. Schwartz
176 F. Supp. 613 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1959)
Krulewitch v. United States
336 U.S. 440 (Supreme Court, 1949)
United States v. Sutter
160 F.2d 754 (Seventh Circuit, 1947)
Bell v. Board of Regents of the University
65 N.E.2d 184 (New York Court of Appeals, 1945)
Singer v. United States
323 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court, 1945)
United States v. Central Packing Corp.
51 F. Supp. 813 (E.D. New York, 1943)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1942

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 U.S. 677, 12 S. Ct. 764, 36 L. Ed. 591, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2118, 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eaton-scotus-1892.