Could not find header file for oye


  • View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    RAFFERTY v. SMITH, BELL & CO, 257 U.S. 226 (1921)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    RAFFERTY v. SMITH, BELL & CO, 257 U.S. 226 (1921)

    257 U.S. 226

    RAFFERTY, Collector of Internal Revenue,
    SMITH, BELL & CO., Limited.



    Nos. 138, 140, and 142.
    Argued Nov. 10, 1921.
    Decided Dec. 5, 1921.

    Messrs. Grant T. Trent, of Washington, D. C., and Charles Marvin, of New York City, for petitioner.

    Mr. Clarence B. Miller, of Harrisburg, Pa., for respondents.[ Rafferty v. Smith, Bell & Co 257 U.S. 226 (1921) ]

    [257 U.S. 226, 231]  

    Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

    These cases turn upon the same question and were argued together. In our view they can be disposed of by applying the Act of Congress, approved June 5, 1920, c. 253, 41 Stat. 1015, 1025, without passing upon any other point.

    Acting under ostensible authority of section 1614, Act 2657, philippine Legislature, approved February 24, 1916, and effective July 1 thereafter, the collector of internal revenue for the Philippine Islands levied and collected the taxes here challenged upon the value of certain commodities exported from those Islands by respondents between October 1, 1916, and September 30, 1917

    The Supreme Court of the Islands, gave judgments for the respondents during March, 1920. Petitions for writs of certiorari filed here in September thereafter and within time prescribed by law, were allowed. 254 U.S. 626 , 41 Sup. Ct. 62. Act of Congress approved September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. 1225b, 1228a).

    Section 1614, Act 2657:

    Section 11, Act of Congress, approved August 29, 1916 (Autonomy Act) c. 416, 39 Stat. 545 (Comp. St. 3812b):

    The Act of Congress, approved June 5, 1920, supra, provides:

    We think the language last quoted was intended to apply to the taxes collected from respondents, here called in question, and that it is sufficiently broad to include them. That the enactment is within the power of Congress necessarily follows from the doctrine announced in United States v. Heinszen & Co., 206 U.S. 370 , 386, et seq, 27 Sup. Ct. 742, 11 Ann. Cas. 688.

    The judgments below were subject to review here and the mere fact that the causes had proceeded to such stage gave respondents no higher rights than those possessed by Heinszen & Co., whose action to recover, although instituted prior to the passage of that enactment, was held to have been barred by the Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3912, 34 Stat. 636.

    The judgments of the Supreme Court, so far as adverse to Rafferty, the collector, must be reversed, and judgments [257 U.S. 226, 233]   entered here in his favor, but without any allowance for costs either in this court or in the courts below.


    Mr. Justice CLARKE concurs in the result.

    FindLaw Career Center

    Ads by FindLaw