HAGER v. SWAYNE(1893)
Charles Page, for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action brought by R. H. Swayne in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of California, to recover from the defendant, Joseph S. Hager, collector of the port of San Francisco, the sum of $3,799.56 on account of duties illegally exacted by the collector on divers importations of cotton shoes and silk shoes, brought into said port in the year 1886 by several importers from ports in China. The complaint contained 47 counts for various amounts, alleged to be due upon an equal number of importations made by many different firms and persons, and the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to recover the aggregate sum by reason of having become the owner of these several claims by way of purchase and assignment.
Issue having been joined, a trial by jury was waived by stipulation, and it was agreed that all the importations of cotton shoes referred to in the several counts might be considered under one head, and all the importations of silk shoes under another. The circuit court thereupon made its findings of fact, and therefrom its conclusion of law that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the entire sum sued for. Judgment was accordingly entered against the collector, who brought the case by writ of error to this court.
The upper part of the shoes was composed of cotton or of silk, and a portion of the soles was of felt, made up of coarse animal hair of different kinds and of wood fiber and starch or glue, all of which had been felted, mixed, and pressed into layers, which layers were in turn pressed together until the requisite thickness was reached The most valuable material [149 U.S. 242, 244] of the shoe was the silk or cotton, respectively, and no part contained hair of any kind in the textile fabric, nor were they made up by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer of similar character to a tailor or seamstress.
The collector decided that these shoes were dutiable under the paragraph of Schedule K of the tariff act of 1883 (22 St. p. 509) fixing duty on wearing apparel of every description not specially enumerated or provided for, composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, made up or manufactured wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer, at the rate of 40 cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, 35 per centum ad valorem, and exacted of the importers payment of the duties accordingly. The importers, as found by the court, 'for the purpose of getting possession of their said merchandise, paid the amount so required of them, but within the time required by law notified the collector of their dissatisfaction with, and protest against, his decision, and appealed to the secretary of the treasury, who affirmed the decision of the collector. The importers thereupon, for value, assigned their claims to the plaintiff, who, withing the time required by law, commenced this action for the recovery of the said excess of duties.' The circuit court held that the cotton shoes fell under the paragraph of Schedule I (22 St. p. 506) imposing 35 per cent. ad valorem on manufactures of cotton not specially enumerated or provided for, and the silk shoes under the last paragraph of Schedule L, imposing 50 per cent. on goods not specially enumerated, made of silk, or of which silk was the component material of chief value. 37 Fed. Rep. 780.
It was held by this court in Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238 , 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 184, that the common-law right of action against a collector to recover duties illegally collected was taken away by act of congress, and a statutory remedy given, which was exclusive. Rev. St. 2931, 3011; Arnson v. Murphy, 115 U.S. 579 , 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185; Cheatham v. U. S., 92 U.S. 85 . While the common-law right was outstanding, the collector withheld, as an indemnity, the sum in dispute; but congress provided that he must [149 U.S. 242, 245] pay into the treasury all moneys received officially, and that the secretary of the treasury should refund erroneous and illegal exactions. Rev. St. 3010, 3012 1/2.
The suit to recover back an excess of duties necessarily could only be maintained as affirmatively specified in the statute. Section 3011 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of congress of February 27, 1877, (19 St. pp. 240, 247,) provides:
Section 2931 reads as follows:
From these sections it appears that it is the 'owner, importer, consignee, or agent of the merchandise, in the case of duties levied on merchandise,' who must protest and appeal, and he is the person who, having made payment under protest 'in order to obtain possession of merchandise imported for him,' may maintain the action. It does not follow that devisees, representatives of the estates of deceased persons, assignees in bankruptcy or by operation of law, are excluded from bringing suit, for they take by devolution, and are regarded as succeeding in interest to the original party; but the statute does not contemplate that a stranger may bring the action, and such is a voluntary assignee of the mere naked right.
In Castro v. Seeberger, 40 Fed. Rep. 531, Castro had purchased the merchandise of the importer while it was in bond, and pending an appeal, and after the decision of the appeal paid the duties assessed in order to obtain possession of the property, and thereupon brought the suit; and it was decided by Judge Blodgett, holding the circuit court for the northern district of Illinois, that the claim against the collector became attached to and followed the merchandise, so as to make the purchaser, who paid the charges, constructively the importer, [149 U.S. 242, 247] and entitled to maintain the action under the statute. The purchaser obtained an interest in the thing itself. The case here is wholly different, for these importers, after the decision of the secretary, paid the duties and took the goods themselves, and then attempted to assign a bare right of action to this plaintiff.
By section 3477 all transfers and assignments made of any claim upon the United States, or of any part or share thereof, or interest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever might be the consideration therefor, and all powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities for receiving payment of any such claim, or of any part or share thereof, were declared to be absolutely null and void, unless they were freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such a claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof. The language is general which declares the nullity of such assignments, and the only cases where they are recognized is where a warrant has already issued. If there are any cases where the claim cannot be paid by warrant, then they do not come within the exception, but are affected by the general language. 16 Op. Atty. Gen. 261.
The mischiefs designed to be remedied by this section were declared by Mr. Justice Miller in Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U.S. 556 , to be mainly two: First, the danger that the rights of the government might be embarrassed by having to deal with several persons instead of one, and by the introduction of a party who was a stranger to the original transaction; second, that, by a transfer of such claim against the government to one or more persons not originally interested in it, the way might be conveniently opened to such improper influences in prosecuting the claim before the departments, the courts, or the congress as desperate cases, where the award is contingent on success, so often suggest.
It has been frequently held that the section does not include transfers by operation of law, or by will, in bankruptcy or insolvency. Butler v. Goreley, 146 U.S. 303 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84, and cases cited. But the legislation shows that the intent of congress was [149 U.S. 242, 248] that the assignment of naked claims against the government for the purposes of suit, or in view of litigation, or otherwise, should not be countenanced. At common law, the transfer of a mere right to recover in an action at law was forbidden as violating the rule against maintenance and champerty; and, although the rigor of that rule has been relaxed, an assignment of a chose in action will not be sanctioned when it is opposed to any rule of law or public policy.
These considerations are apposite in arriving at the true construction of sections 2931 and 3011, and we are clear that the action provided for cannot be maintained by a stranger, suing solely in virtue of a purchase of claims from those who did not see fit to prosecute them themselves.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with a direction to dismiss the complaint.