Christie-Street Commission Co. v. United States

Citations

• 129 F. 506
• 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4061

Syllabus

<p>1. Taxes — Payment under Duress — Recovery—Tort—Jurisdiction.</p> <p>The amended petition alleging that the tax sought to be recovered was exacted by threats and paid under duress, the action is for damages sounding in tort. Held, therefore, that the action is excepted from the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, in the first instance, by section 1 of the act of March 3, 1887, c. 359, 24 Stat. 505 LU. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 752],</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>The case of Dooley v. United States, 21 Sup. Ct. 762, 182 U. S. 222, 45 L. Ed. 1074, differentiated, as that was controlled by the construction placed upon section 8, art. 1, of the federal Constitution. As such, the action was founded on the Constitution, and conferred jurisdiction on the Circuit Court under the act of 1887.</p> <p>3. Same — Limitations.</p> <p>The amended,petition, as did the original, disclosing the fact that the plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for redress, under section 3226, Rev. St. U. S. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2088], held, that the action is subject to the period of limitations imposed by sections 3226 and 3227 of said statutes.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>In such case the running of the statute of limitations Is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.</p> <p>5. Same — Estoppel.</p> <p>Statements made by ministerial or departmental officers of the government to the claimant pending such appeal, to the effect that the claim would be allowed, or had been certified favorably to the auditing office, constitute no estoppel against the government, so as to avoid the operation of the statute of limitations.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>