right to the tax did not accrue, because the tax could not be demanded before the repeal of the act. Mason v. Sargent, supra. It follows, therefore, that the judgment of the court below was right, and it is accordingly affirmed.
UNITED STATES V. TRUOK'S ADM'X. 1
(Circuit Court, E. D. Penn811l'IJania. October 16, 1886.)
INTERNAL REVENUE -
JUNE 30,1864. A common-law action cannot be maintained to enforce the payment of legacy and succession taxes imposed by the act of congress of June 30, 1864. That act provides a remedy which the United States must pursue where the tax has not been paid.
LEGAOY AND SUOOESSION TAXES -
OF CONGRESS 01'
Writ of Error to the District Court. See 27 Fed. Rep. 541. This was an action brought by the United States to recover legacy taxes imposed by the act of congress of June 30, 18-64. John K. Valentine, Dist. Atty., for the United States. Bernard Gilpin, for defendant in error.
McKsNNAN, J. The long delay which bas attended the assertion of the claim set up in this case, a,nd the apparent injustice of subjectinga trustee to personal liability for it, who has long since paid out the trust fund in her hands, under a judicial decree, ought to protect her from such liability, unless the right of the government to recover is entirely clear. The only question which it is necessary to consider is the primary one, can the United States, in view of the provisions of the act of congress imposing the tax claimed, maintain an action at common law to recover it from the defendant? It waa decided by the court below that it could not. It is a rule of the common law, that where a statute creates a right, and provides a particular remedy for its enforcement, the remedy is generally exclusive of all common-law remedies. But it has been held that this rule is not applicable to the United States, unless it is expressly made so by the statute under which the claim is made. Savings Bank v. U. S., 19 Wall. 237. By the act of 1862, and its supplements and substitutes a tax was imposed upon successions. This tax was made a lien or charge upon the property bequeathed or to be distributed, and it was made the dntyof the executor, administrator, or tl'Ustee to pay it; and, in case of his refusal or negleot to pay it, it is provided that "proceedings shall be oommenced before any court of the United States, in the
by C. B. Taylor, Esq., of the l'hiladelpllia bar.
name of the United States, against such person or persons as may have the actual or constructive custody or possession of such persona) estate or property, or any part thereof; and shall subject such prop· erty or personal estate, or any portion of the same, to be sold upon the judgment or decree of such c01;lrt." The language of the act is imperative that this remedy shall be pursued if payment of the tax: is not made, and that it shall be in the name of the United States. This could not be expressed in clearer or more explicit language. If it is plain, then, that congress intended that the proceedings prescribed by the statute should be the remedy pnrsued by the United States when the tax: was not paid, then the common-law rule above stated applies, and a common-law action cannot be maintained. This is decisive of the case against the United' States, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
RENNECKE and another.
w: D. South Oarolina.
One is engaged in the business of a retail liquor dealer, within the meaning of Rev. St. U. S. § 3242, if he has liquor on hand to be sold to any ODe who applies for it. 2. SAME-SINGLE ACT. Evidence of a single act of selling may be sufficient for conviction. The absence of a bar and other appliances should not weigh much in defense. 3. SAME-CARRYING ON RETAIL LIQUOR BUSINESS. .' .: . Supplying a friend as a matter of accommodation merely, from.liquor on hand for private use, is not carrying OD the business, although mODey :is reo ceived for it. . ,
INTERNAL REVENUE-VIOLATION OF LAWS-RETAIL LIQUOR DEALER.
Indictment for Carrying on Retail Liquor Business without·Lic/mse. Mr. Youmans, Dist. Atty., for the United States. Mr. Cooke, for defendants. SIMONTON, J., (charging jury.) The defendants are inl;1icted for the violation of section 3242 of the Revised Statutes, in that theycarHed on the business of retail liquor dealers without liaving paid the special tax. The question you niust answer· by· your verdict is, did,they carryon the business of retail liquor dealers? The sale of .liquor on more than one occasion has been testified to by several witn.'esses. In answering this question regard must be had to the attenaing the sll.le. If the sale was under such circumstances aaindicated that the defendants had the liquor on hand to be sold ,to any one who applied for it, then they may be said to have been engaged in the business, although but one act of selling has been the other hand,if they permitted a neighbororfriend