Heinszen v. United States

Citations

• 42 Ct. Cl. 58
• 1907 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105
• 1907 WL 906

Syllabus

<p>On the defendants’ Demurrer.</p> <p>Tliis case, brought July 1, 1902, is to recover back duties exacted in the Philippine Islands by the military authorities on goods imported between April 11, 1899, and November 15, 1901.</p> <p>I.That the United States are the proper party defendant in a suit to recover back duties exacted by the military authorities in the Philippine Islands in 1899 and 1901 must have been considered and was impliedly decided by the Supreme Court in Warner, Barnes & Go. The duties were collected by their military authorities, and not by the authorities of the Philippine Islands.</p> <p>II.It has also been impliedly decided by the Supreme Court that the payment of such duties was not a voluntary payment and that they may be recovered back, though paid without protest.</p> <p>III.The Act 80th June, 1906 (34 Stat. L., p. 63G), validating tariff duties imposed by the authorities oí the United States in the Philippine Islands prior to March 8, 1902, can not take away or impair a right of action, then in suit, to recover back .such duties exacted without authority of law. So far as the act seeks to do so, it is unconstitutional.</p> <p>IY. Retrospective statutes relating to defects in tax proceedings can extend only to such defects as are in the nature of irregularities ; they can not cure defects in matter of authority or jurisdiction, and should be confined to proceedings which the legislatures, by a prior statute, might have dispensed with. The cases and authorities dealing with curative and retrospective legislation fully reviewed.</p>