Ryan v. United States (86 U.S. 514)/Opinion of the Court

by Samuel Freeman Miller

United States Supreme Court

86 U.S. 514

Ryan  v.  United States

The condition of the bond describes the subject of it with great particularity. It calls it merchandise, and besides giving the number of boxes, calls it plug tobacco. It also gives the precise number of pounds, the tax for which each pound was liable, and the aggregate of the tax. The condition is that this tobacco shall be transported from the manufactory where it then was to the proper warehouse in New York, and on the performance of this condition the bond for $10,000 was to be void, and not otherwise. That the condition was to transport the plug tobacco, and not the boxes in which it was supposed to be, is too obvious for argument. Who is to be responsible for the fact that the tobacco was never in the boxes; the persons who gave this bond binding themselves that May would deliver 11,928 1/2 pounds of plug tobacco in New York, or the party for whose security it was given, and who was to lose if it was not so delivered? The question admits of but one answer. When the sureties joined their principal in such a bond, it was their duty to protect themselves by seeing that the tobacco for which they were responsible was so transported, and if they trusted to him instead of making the requisite examination and supervision of the transaction, they must bear the loss sustained by this misplaced confidence.

It is urged, however, that the officer whose duty it was to examine these boxes did it in such a negligent manner that the success of the fraud is to be attributed to his carelessness.

The finding of the court is, that the inspector did not examine the contents of said boxes, the same being closed and nailed up so as to exclude a view of the contents, and that they were duly branded by him as containing plug tobacco.

The Circuit Court does not find that this was negligence, and we are not prepared here to say on this slight statement, as matter of law, that it was negligence. But if it were negligence we are of opinion that it was not such as would relieve the sureties from an obligation to the United States, voluntarily assumed by them, that 110 boxes containing 11,928 1/2 pounds of plug tobacco should be delivered by their principal in New York. The very purpose of their bond was to secure the United States against the fraud of their principal, and the fraud was committed by him, in the very matter which the bond was designed to guard against. To say that the carelessness of the revenue officer made this fraud easier of accomplishment, can be no release of the sureties from their obligation. Some rules prescribed by the Internal Revenue Bureau for the guidance of these officers in reference to transportation of tobacco in bond, are annexed to the brief of the plaintiffs in error. They are not made a part of the record by bill of exceptions or otherwise, and are not, we think, matter for our judicial cognizance. If they were, we see nothing in them to change the opinion we have formed without them, that the judgment of the Circuit Court holding the sureties liable on their bond was right. It is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.

Notes