Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

232 U.S. 290

34 S. Ct. 427

58 L. Ed. 609

Docket Nos. 64 and 623.

Pierce v. United States

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • H. CLAY PIERCE, Plff. in Errv.UNITED STATES. NO 64
  • UNITED STATESv.H. CLAY PIERCE. NO 623

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued January 6 and 7, 1914.

Decided February 24, 1914.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1914-02-24

<p>Billings v. United States, ante, p. 261, followed and distinguished, to the effect that the owner of a foreign-built yacht is not liable-for the tax imposed by § 37 of the Tariff Act of 1909, if the yacht was not actually used at all during the preceding year.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on Billings v. United States

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Tonnage”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · 8–0 · Decided 1914-02-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1988

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

4019141920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. William D. Guthrie for H. Clay Pierce.

Assistant Attorney General Adkins and Mr. Karl W. Kirchwey for the United States

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

¶1

These two cases involve the liability of the plaintiff in error in No. 64 for a tax on the foreign-built yacht Yacona, which became due on the 1st of September, 1909. The complaint in every substantial particular was identical with that filed in the Billings Case this day decided [232 U. S. 261, 58 L. ed. ——, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421], and this is true also of the defenses set up in the answer, except that the answer in this case contained this distinct averment which was not in the Billings Case: 'That the said yacht Yacona was not in use by the defendant or by any other person at any time during the year next preceding the 1st day of September, 1909, but was out of commission of September, 1909, but was out of commission in the state of New York, throughout the whole of such year.' The case was submitted on bill and answer, and the liability for the tax, which was upheld by the court below, was rested upon the construction as to potential use,—that is, a tax on the privilege of using,—which we decided in the Billings Case to be unsound. In this case, as in that, the certificate is concerned with a writ of error prosecuted by the United States to the circuit court of appeals because of the rejection of a prayer for interest. Treating both the cases in this instance as one, as we did in the previous cases, and applying to this the construction which we have given the statute in those cases, it follows that the judgment below was wrong and must be reversed, with direction to dismiss the complaint.

¶2

And it is so ordered.

/232/us/290 · .json · Public domain