commodities with its customers, and executed the same by pretended purchases and sales through another bucket shop having no relations with such customers, the contract between them expressly providing that the first was not an agent of the second, was conducting a separate business, and the transactions of both concerns were subject to the stamp tax imposed by War Revenue Act June 13, 1898, c. 448, § 25, schedule A, 30 Stat. 458, as amended by Act March 2, 1901, c. 806, § 8, subd. 3, 31 Stat. 943. Eldridge v. Ward (1909) 174 Fed. 402, 98 C. C. A. 619, affirming judgment Eldredge v. Ward (C. C. 1907) 155 Fed. 253. Act March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. 943), provides that every corporation which shall in its own behalf, or as agent, conduct what is commonly known as a "bucket shop," shall pay a stamp tax of 2 cents on each $100 of the face value, or fraction thereof, of all stocks, bonds, or other securities covered, etc. Held, that where defendant commission company contracted with S. that the latter should open a separate office, and send trades obtained to defendant, and for his services defendant agreed to pay one-fourth of the commission charged to the customer, and S. received an order for stocks, which he transmitted to defendant, and which was filled by the latter, whereupon S. executed a memorandum of the sale, which he duly stamped, S. acted simply as the agent of defendant, and hence the latter was not guilty of a violation of the statute by reason of its failure to execute and stamp a memorandum of sale to S. U. S. v. Clawson (D. C. 1902) 119 Fed. 994. 56. Pledge or hypothecation of stock. -If stock is hypothecated simply by the delivery of the certificates, or is deposited as the basis of credit without a mortgage or other instrument being executed, no tax thereon, collectible by the affixing and cancellation of an adhesive documentary stamp, can be imposed. The provision named does not impose a tax upon anything which is not written or printed. (1900) 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 53. Stock pledged as security for loans would be taxable under the first paragraph of Schedule A if accompanied by any paper or agreement or memorandum or other evidence of transfer such as is contemplated by the statutes. Id. The depositing with the Girard Trust Company by the Pennsylvania Company, under a written agreement, of certificates of stock of other corporations as a pledge for the performance of its covenant to pay, when due, the interest and principal of certain certificates of indebtedness issued and sold by the former company for the benefit of the latter, constitutes such a pledging of stocks for the future payment of money as to render the transaction taxable under Schedule A of the act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. 942), although the power of attorney accompanying the agreement only authorized the transfer of the stock so deposited in case of default by the pledgor, and until such default the pledgor was to retain and exercise all the rights, powers, and privileges belonging or incident to such ownership. (1902) 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 615. 57. Agreement to sell.-A "call" for stock, which contains an absolute promise to sell the stock at any time within 15 days at a certain price, though it may be a unilateral contract, is an "agreement to sell," within the provision of War Revenue Act June 13, 1898, c. 448, § 25, Schedule A, 30 Stat. 458, requiring a stamp tax of 2 cents on each $100 of face value or fraction thereof. Treat v. White (1901) 21 Sup. Ct. 611, 181 U. S. 264, 45 L. Ed. 853, answering certified questions (1901) 109 Fed. 1063, 47 C. C. A. 686. 58. "Call" memorandum or writing.. A "call" memorandum or writing, executed for a valuable consideration, giving the bearer the right to call upon the subscriber for certain shares of stock therein named, within a stated time and at a given price, is not an "agreement to sell" such stock, within the meaning of section 25 of the war revenue act of 1898, and is not subject to the stamp tax imposed on such agreements by that section. Such instrument, which merely gives an option, requires a further agreement to effect a sale, which agreement, or the sale when so effected, is clearly subject to the tax, and the statute contains no language indicating an intention to require the payment of the tax twice on a single sale. White v. Treat (C. C. 1900) 100 Fed. 290. A writing termed a "call," in which the signer agrees to sell the stock described in the paper at the price named, provided the holder of the paper calls upon him within the time specified, is taxable under the first paragraph of Schedule A, but not under the eighth paragraph. (1899) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 447. 59. Second tax on memorandum.— Where plaintiff accepted purchases and sales of stocks on margin obtained from customers by various correspondents, and a stamp tax was paid on a memorandum given to the customer, under War Revenue Act July 13, 1898, § 25, subd. 3, schedule A, plaintiff was not bound to pay a second tax on a memorandum between it and the correspondent. Metropolitan Stock Exchange v. Gill (1912) 199 Fed. 545, 118 C. C. A. 19. 60. Constitutionality.-Internal Revenue Act 1898, Schedule A, par. 2 (30 Stat. 458), imposing a tax on "each sale, agreement of sale or agreement to sell any products or merchandise, at any exchange or board of trade, or other sim ilar place," and requiring, on the making of any such sale, the delivery by the seller to the buyer of a written bill or memorandum, to which a revenue stamp shall be affixed, equal to the amount of the tax on the sale, is not a direct tax, within Const. art. 1, § 9, subd. 4, requiring such a tax to be apportioned, but is in the nature of a duty or excise tax for the privilege of doing business at such place, graduated according to the use, and not a tax either on the memorandum required, the article sold, or the occupation; and, since applied equally to sales made at such places throughout the United States, it conforms with Const. art. 1, § 8, requiring excises and duties to be uniform throughout the United States, and is therefore valid. Nicol v. Ames (1899) 19 S. Ct. 522, 173 U. S. 509, 43 L. Ed. 786, affirming order (C. C. 1898) 89 Fed. 144. The act affects with equal force sales made at such places for future delivery, though they may ultimately be carried out by payment of differences in market price at the date of delivery, instead of actual delivery of the goods, since the privilege used in either case is the same. Id. The act is not objectionable for nonuniformity, in that it is not levied on all who make sales of the same commodities, whether at exchanges or not; for since such places afford special facilities, not afforded to others, they furnish a legitimate ground for classification for the imposition of taxation, and the tax, being equally imposed on all availing themselves of such facilities, possesses the uniformity required by the constitution. Id. The tax is also not objectionable on that ground in that it only taxes the sellers, and not the buyers, and those who sell products or merchandise, and not those who sell bonds, stock, etc., since it is not necessary to the uniformity of an excise tax imposed on privileges that every exercise thereof should be taxed. Id. 61. "Similar place" within meaning of statute.-Revenue Act 1898, Schedule A, par. 2 (30 Stat. 458), provides for the taxation of sales of products or merchandise "at any exchange, or board of trade, or other similar place," etc., and for the affixing of stamps to the bill or memorandum equal to the amount of the tax on the sale. Held, that the Chicago Union Stockyards, where special facilities are provided for the penning, feeding, weighing, and sale of stock, was a "similar place," within the meaning of the act, and that sales made there were subject to its provisions. Nicol v. Ames (1899) 19 Sup. Ct. 522, 528, 173 U. S. 509, 43 L. Ed. 786, affirming order (C. C. 1898) 89 Fed. 144. 62. Former law.-The war revenue act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 459), required a stamp of the value of 2 cents 63. Extension of statute by construction. A tax law cannot be extended by construction to things not described as the subject of taxation, and though a party may not use a letter in the character of a substantial instrument to evade a stamp tax, if it is really a mere communication by way of correspondence intended merely to convey the purpose of the writer and not as an evidence of a debt and is not used otherwise, it need not be stamped to be given in evidence. Boyd v. Hood (1868) 57 Pa. (7 P. F. Smith) 98. A debtor placed a note due him in the hands of the defendant, a creditor, to receive the amount and take out his indebtedness. He afterwards wrote to plaintiff, another creditor, that he should receive his debt from the proceeds of the note after defendant was paid. Plaintiff, by direction of the debtor, showed the letter to the defendant, who promised to pay the money when received. Held, that the letter was not an instrument requiring a revenue stamp and was admissible in evidence in an action of assumpsit. Id. A debtor left a note in the hands of a creditor for collection and to pay his claim out of the proceeds, and afterward wrote to another creditor that the latter should receive his claim out of such proceeds, after the first creditor should be paid and requested the second creditor to show the letter of the first creditor. Held, that such letter was not an order or promise to pay money, a note, or an assignment within Act March 3, 1865 (sections 1, 2, Brightly's Dig. 264, pl. 252), requiring such documents to be stamped before being placed in evidence. Id. 64. Forged note.-The uttering and publishing of a promissory note, though the forger did not place thereon the revenue stamp required by Act July 13, 1866, is indictable, as under that act any person having an interest in the note might affix the proper stamp thereto, and thereby render the note valid. State v. Mott (1871) 16 Minn. 472 (Gil. 424) 10 Am. Rep. 152. 65. Receipt for money loaned.-A receipt for money loaned, importing an obligation to repay, requires a revenue stamp. Hoops v. Atkins (1870) 41 Ga. 109. 66. Receipt for property to be paid at a certain price.-A receipt for hogshead staves to be paid at a certain price is "a note for the security of money," within the stamp act of 1797. Moore v. Gadsby (C. C. 1801) Fed. Cas. No. 9,762; Neale v. Hill (C. C. 1801) Fed. Cas. No. 10,068. 67. Stamping anew on transfer to another than original holder. Where notes are payable to the order of the maker and are by him indorsed in blank, and the mortgage securing them is in favor of a named person and any other or future holder of them, neither the notes nor the mortgage need be stamped anew when transferred to another than the original holder, even if the United States revenue laws could impose a law of evidence upon the state courts, a doctrine which the court repudiates. Foreman V. Francis (La. 1880) Man. Unrep. Cas. 337. 68. Constitutionality of tax on foreign bill of lading.-The stamp tax imposed on a foreign bill of lading by Act June 13, 1898, c. 448, § 6, 30 Stat. 448. is in substance and effect equivalent to a tax on the articles included in that bill of lading, and therefore a tax or duty on exports, prohibited by Const. art. 1, § 9. Fairbank v. U. S. (1901) 21 Sup. Ct. 648, 649, 181 U. S. 283, 45 L. Ed. 862. 69. Term "goods" as including money. The term "goods" as used in the paragraph entitled "Express and Freight," Schedule A of the war revenue act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 459) includes money. (1898) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 178. 70. Meaning of "accepted for transportation."-The term "accepted for transportation" as used in the paragraph entitled "Express and Freight," in the war revenue act (30 Stat. 459), means goods received from a shipper or consignee other than the carrier itself, and is intended to apply to goods received for transportation in the usual manner by common carriers. (1898) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 252. 71. Duplicate bills of lading.-A railroad company issued bills of lading marked "Original," to each of which was attached a detachable copy, marked as such, and containing a statement thereon that it was not an original bill of lading, but merely a memorandum for filing, as an acknowledgment that a bill of lading had been issued for the goods described. Held, that such copies were not duplicate bills of lading, within the meaning of paragraph 6 of Schedule A of the war revenue act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 458, c. 448), and were not required to be stamped; nor were they rendered such by the fact that in some instances the company recognized them in making deliveries to the consignee, waiving the production of the original. Wright v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (1904) 130 Fed. 843, 65 C. C. A. 327. In paragraph 6 of Schedule A of the war revenue act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 458, c. 448), which requires a stamp to be affixed to each bill of lading, manifest, etc., "and to each duplicate thereof," the word "duplicate" is to be defined in accordance with the meaning given it generally in business, as one of two instruments, each of which is original, and intended to have the force of an obligation irrespective of the other, and not as meaning merely a copy. Id. 72. Exemption of express companies as to bills of lading, etc.-The exemption of express companies by Act March 2, 1901, c. 806, from the requirement of War Revenue Act June 13, 1898, c. 448, in relation to adhesive stamps to be placed upon bills of lading, manifects, or other evidences of the receipt of goods for carriage or transportation, requires the affirmance on certiorari, without reference to the merits of the case as affected by the earlier act, of a judgment of the circuit court of appeals affecting the dismissal of a suit to prevent the application by an express company of any of its moneys to meet this requirement. Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. Co. (1901) 22 Sup. Ct. 45, 46, 183 U. S. 115, 46 L. Ed. 111, affirming judgment Trammell v. Dinsmore (1900) 102 Fed. 794, 42 C. C. A. 623. The United States Express Company is not, by reason of its contract with the United States for the transportation of money, securities, etc., relieved of its duty under the war revenue act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 459), of issuing a bill of lading, manifest, or other receipt with a 1-cent stamp duly attached and canceled, for each such transportation for the Government. (1898) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 192. 73. Receipts issued by express companies. Act 1865 (13 Stat. 469), excepting receipts issued by express companies on the delivery of property for transportation from the class of receipts subject to stamp duties, includes receipts given by express companies containing conditions limiting their liability as carriers. De Barre v. Livingston (N. Y. 1867) 48 Barb. 511. Act June 30, 1864, § 151, requiring a revenue stamp on each sheet of an agreement or contract, does not include receipts given by express companies, though they contained conditions limiting the liability of such companies. Id. A receipt issued by an express company does not require a revenue stamp, being within the exception in the act of 1865. Belger v. Dinsmore (N. Y. 1868) 51 Barb. 69, 34 How. Prac. 421. 74. Excess baggage receipt.-An excess baggage receipt issued by a railroad company to a passenger for excess weight of baggage does not require a stamp under Schedule A, paragraph "Express and Freight" of the war revenue act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 459). (1898) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 246. 75. Transportation extending outside of country.-The war revenue act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 459), requires the payment of a stamp tax of 1 cent, under the clause headed "Express and Freight," upon bills of lading, receipts, manifests, and other similar documents issued by railroad companies for the receipt of goods to be transported by rail from any place within the United States to Canada or Mexico; but no tax is payable thereon under the clause relating to goods exported from a port or place in the United States to any foreign port or place. (1900) 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 3. Under the war revenue act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 459), a 1-cent. stamp should be attached to all bills of lading for goods transported from places within the United States to Canada or Mexico. Such bills being in part domestic, given for transportation within the United States as well as for export, may be taxed upon the domestic part regardless of the ultimate destination of the goods. (1902) 24 Op. Atty. Gen. 44. 76. Money and merchandise carried free.-Money and merchandise carried by the Adams Express Company for the Pennsylvania Railroad Company over the lines of the latter, free of charge, under a contract between the two companies, do not require a bill of lading or manifest under the provisions of the war revenue law, and, if given, it is not liable to the stamp tax provided for under the head of "Express and Freight" in the war revenue act of 1898 (30 Stat. 459). (1898) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 252. 77. Inland bills of lading, under act of 1864.-Receipts for goods delivered to a common carrier for transportation, being in effect inland bills of lading, were not subject to stamp duty under the act of 1864. U. S. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (C. C. 1868) Fed. Cas. No. 14,509. 78. Who must affix and pay for stamp.-An express company is not forbidden by the act of June 13, 1898, known as the "War Revenue Act," from adding to its rates an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the stamp required to be affixed to a receipt issued to the shipper, and thereby shifting the burden of the tax upon the shipper, if the rate as increased thereby is not unreasonable. Crawford v. Hubbell (1900) 20 Sup. Ct. 701, 177 U. S. 419, 44 L. Ed. 829; American Exp. Co. v. Maynard (1900) 20 Sup. Ct. 695, 177 U. S. 404, 44 L. Ed. 823, reversing judgment Attorney General v. American Exp. Co. (1898) 77 N. W. 317, 118 Mich. 682. An express company is not forbidden by this act from adding to its rates an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the stamp required to be affixed to a receipt issued to the shipper, and thereby shifting the burden of the tax upon the shipper, if the rate as increased thereby is not unreasonable. American Exp. Co. v. Maynard (1900) 20 Sup. Ct. 695, 697, 177 U. S. 404, 44 L. Ed. 823. The provision of the war revenue act of 1898, imposing a stamp tax on express receipts, neither authorizes nor prohibits an increase of rates by an express company to cover the cost of the stamp required; and the action of a state railroad commission authorized by statute to prescribe rates for carriage between points within the state, in prohibiting an express company from adding the cost of the revenue stamp to the maximum rates prescribed, is within its jurisdiction and powers, and can only be set aside by the courts on the ground that the rates so compelled are so low as to be violative of constitutional rights. Trammell v. Dinsmore (1900) 102 Fed. 794, 42 C. C. A. 623, judgment affirmed Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. Co. (1901) 22 Sup. Ct. 45, 183 U. S. 115, 46 L. Ed. 111. The provision of the revenue act of 1898 requiring carriers to affix stamps to receipts given to shippers contains no express language prohibiting a carrier from requiring payment for such stamp from the shipper, in the absence of which such requirement is lawful. Crawford v. Hubbell (C. C. 1898) 89 Fed. 961. Where a package was offered to an express company for transportation, accompanied by a tender of the full amount of the company's regular charges for the service, such company could not refuse to accept the package unless further payment of one cent or of a one-cent documentary internal revenue stamp was made, and mandamus would lie to compel its acceptance. People v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (1901) 64 P. 702, 135 Cal. 503, reversed (1902) 67 P. 895, 135 Cal. 503. Where a package is offered for transportation to an express company, required by the war revenue act (Act Cong. June 13, 1898) to attach a stamp thereto, the company may refuse to accept the package for transportation at the regular rates, and may insist on the further payment of the price of the revenue stamp to be attached thereto, or that the consignor furnish such stamp. People v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (1902) 67 P. 895, 135 Cal. 503, reversing judgment on rehearing (1901) 64 Pac. 702, 135 Cal. 503. Under Act June 13, 1898, it is the duty of common carriers, on receiving packages for transportation, to issue receipts and bills of lading therefor, and to affix thereto the revenue stamp, without requiring the shipper to pay therefor. United States Exp. Co. v. People (1898) 80 Ill. App. 446. 79. Liability to penalty under statute. -Under Act June 13, 1898, Schedule A, relating to stamp taxes, which makes it the duty of every carrier to issue to the shipper or consignor, "from whom any goods are accepted for transportation," a bill of lading, to which a revenue stamp shall be attached and canceled, and providing that any failure to issue such bill of lading shall subject the carrier to a penalty, it is only when the carrier accepts a consignment for transportation that he is required to issue a stamped bill of lading; his refusal to accept goods offered for shipment does not expose him to the penalty of the act. U. S. v. Wells, Fargo & Co. Express (D. C. 1898) 96 Fed. 835. 80. Telephone messages transmitted under yearly contracts.-Under the war revenue act of June 13, 1898, c. 448, § 25 (30 Stat. 460), which imposes a tax of 1 cent on telephone companies for each message transmitted over their lines for which a charge of 15 cents or more is imposed, a company is subject to the tax on messages transmitted under contracts with subscribers by which each pays $90 per year for the right to send not to exceed 600 local messages during the year. New York Telephone Co. v. Treat (1904) 130 Fed. 340, 64 C. C. A. 586, writ of certiorari denied (1905) 25 Sup. Ct. 802, 198 U. S. 584, 49 L. Ed. 1173. 81. Who must buy, affix, and cancel stamp on telegraphic dispatch.-Under the act of June 13, 1898, § 18 (30 Stat. 456), providing that a telegraph company shall incur a certain penalty for transmitting a message not stamped as therein required; and section 7 (30 Stat. 452), providing that any person who shall "make, sign, or issue" an instrument not properly stamped shall be subject to a fine,-it is the duty of the maker or signer of the message offered for transmission to affix the stamp. Kirk v. Western Union Tel. Co. (C. C. 1899) 90 Fed. 809. Under Revenue Act 1898, directing that no telegraph company shall transmit any message without an adhesive stamp being affixed thereto or stamped thereon, the maker and sender of a telegraphic dispatch must buy, affix, and cancel the revenue stamp required on the dispatch; and the penalty of $10 imposed on the telegraph company for sending an unstamped message is merely to aid the government in compelling the sender to stamp the same. Gray v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1900) 85 Mo. App. 123. 82. "Bond" defined.-A "bond" is an obligation in writing, and under seal, binding the obligor to pay a sum of money to the obligee. It is sometimes denominated a specialty, being under seal, as distinguished from a simple promise to pay not sealed. (1899) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 369. 83. Bond in possession of obligor unissued. A bond, though prepared and signed, which is still in the possession of the obligor unissued, and which may never be issued, is not a debt or obligation which is liable to taxation un der that law. (1899) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 531. Bonds provided for in a mortgage, to be issued or not, as the future action of the mortgagor may determine, are not, under schedule A of the war revenue act of 1898 (30 Stat. 458), until issued, the subject of taxation or an element in estimating the amount of stamps required for the mortgage. Id. 84. Official bonds.-The United States and the states act separately and independently of each other in the field within which each is sovereign, and neither have power to impose a tax which will interfere with the exercise of the sovereignty of the other within their own sphere, either by taxing their functions or the means by which they -are exercised. A power in the federal government to exact a tax upon the right to qualify, under a state law, for the performance of the duties of a state office, is inconsistent with the existence of any supreme governmental authority in the state, and the converse is true as regards the power of the state to tax the means employed by the federal government to carry into execution the powers vested in it by the constitution. Bettman v. Warwick (1901) 108 Fed. 46, 47 C. C. A. 185, affirming judgment Warwick v. Bettman (C. C. 1900) 102 Fed. 127. A stamp tax imposed by the United States upon a bond required by a state from an officer as a prerequisite to the exercise of the duties of his office is, in necessary legal effect, a tax upon the officer's right to qualify, and upon the exercise by the state of its governmental functions, and the fact that the tax is required to be paid before the officer has qualified is unimportant. Id. War Revenue Act June 13, 1898, declares that bonds for indemnifying any person, etc., as surety for the payment of money or the execution of official duties, and all other bonds, except such as are required in legal proceedings, shall pay a tax of 50 cents; and section 17 provides that it is the intent of the act to exempt from the stamp taxes state, county, town, and other municipal corporations in the exercise only of functions strictly belonging to them in their ordinary governmental, taxing, or municipal capacity. Held, that a notary appointed by a state is a state officer employed in the exercise of functions belonging to it in its governmental capacity, and hence the bond required of such notary as part of his qualification for office is not subject to the revenue tax. Warwick v. Bettman (C. C. 1900) 102 Fed. 127, judgment affirmed Bettman v. Warwick (1901) 108 Fed. 46, 47 C. C. A. 185. The United States revenue act, requiring stamps on written instruments, including bonds of public officers, is not unconstitutional, as "taxing the constitutional means employed by a state to execute and carry out its constitutional powers." City of Muscatine v. Sterne |