United States v. Mann

Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

95 U.S. 580

United States  v.  Mann

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.

This is an action by the United States to recover from the defendant $500, as a forfeiture for an alleged violation of sect. 3177 of the Revised Statutes.

The complaint alleges that on the 7th of January, 1875, in the daytime, in the city of St. Paul, Minn., the defendant, Walter Mann, who was then and there the vice-president of the Merchants' National Bank of St. Paul, had the charge and superintendence of the place of business, to wit, the rooms and vaults occupied by said bank, in which said place of business were then and there kept by said bank certain articles subject to tax, to wit, certain bank-checks which had theretofore been drawn upon and paid by said bank, a more particular description whereof is to the plaintiff unknown.

That the defendant, having then and there the charge and superintendence of the said place of business of said bank in which were then and there kept the aforesaid paid bank-checks, was, by Irving Todd, who was then and there the collector of the internal revenue of the United States in and for the collection district of which the said city was then and is a part, and who had then and there entered the said place of business of sid bank for the purpose of examining, as such collector, the said paid bank-checks, then and there duly requested to suffer him, the said collector, as such, to examine the paid bank-checks aforesaid, so kept by said bank then and there in its said place of business, and that the said defendant then and there refused to suffer the said collector to examine said checks, or any one or part of the same, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.

The defendant demurred, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The demurrer having been sustained, and judgment rendered for the defendant, the United States brought the case here.

The Solicitor-General for the United States.

Mr. George L. Otis, contra.

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).