Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Wainer v. United States

299 U.S. 92

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1936-11-09
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “agent cannot be insulated from criminal liability by the fact that his principal authorized his conduct”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wainer v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
19 opinions
WAINERv. UNITED STATES,299 U.S. 92(1936)
57 S.Ct. 79
WAINER ET AL.v. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 51.
Argued October 12, 1936.
Decided November 9, 1936.
1. Federal statutes taxing the carrying on of the wholesale liquor business and imposing penalties for so doing without the payment of the tax were not in direct conflict with the National Prohibition Act and were reenacted by the Act of November 23, 1921, — the "Willis-Campbell Act." P. 93. 2. Such a tax is not a licensing of the liquor business, but is an excise upon the doing of it, whether lawfully or unlawfully.Id.82 F.2d 305, affirmed.
CERTIORARI,298 U.S. 652, to review the affirmance of a
sentence for dealing in liquor without having paid the special
tax.
Mr. John E. Dougherty, with whomMessrs. Harry C. HeylandIrwin S. Rubellewere on the brief, for petitioners.Mr. Gordon Deanargued the cause, andSolicitor GeneralReed, Assistant Attorney General McMahon, andMr. Mahlon D.Kieferfiled a brief, for the United States.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the District Court under an indictment, the second count of which charged them with conducting the business of wholesale liquor dealers without having paid the special tax imposed by the federal revenue laws. The judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.1Certiorari was granted limited to the question whether the statutePage 93upon which the second count of the indictment was based was repealed by the National Prohibition Act2and has not been reenacted.

Many of the existing revenue acts imposing taxes in respect of manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors were superseded by the National Prohibition Act.3The effect of § 5 of the Willis-Campbell Act4was to reenact all such laws in existence when national prohibition became effective, save such as were in direct conflict with any provision of the National Prohibition Act or the Willis-Campbell Act.5The statutes taxing the business of conducting a wholesale liquor business and imposing the penalties for so doing without the payment of the tax6were not in direct conflict with the prohibition act and were, therefore, reenacted.7The difficulty of paying the excise upon the privilege of carrying on a business which is prohibited does not preclude the prescription of sanctions for non-payment.8Petitioners insist it is a contradiction in terms to say the laws of the United States at the same time prohibit and license an occupation. The contention is based on misconception of the nature of the exaction. The United States has not licensed the liquor business but, as is clearly within its power, has laid anPage 94excise upon the doing of the business whether lawfully or unlawfully conducted.9

The judgment isAffirmed.

MR. JUSTICE STONE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
  1. Page 9282 F.2d 305. ↩
  2. Page 93 Act of October 28, 1919, c. 85,41 Stat. 305, U.S.C. Tit. 27,passim. ↩
  3. Page 93United Statesv.Yuginovich,256 U.S. 450. ↩
  4. Page 93 Nov. 23, 1921, c. 134,42 Stat. 222, U.S.C. Tit. 27, § 3. ↩
  5. Page 93United Statesv.Stafoff,260 U.S. 477. ↩
  6. Page 93 R.S. 3242; U.S.C. Tit. 26, § 1397. ↩
  7. Page 93United Statesv.Remus,260 U.S. 477,479,480. The decision to the contrary by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit inBaileyv.United States,5 F.2d 437, was not followed by the same court in the later case ofAndersonv.United States,30 F.2d 485. ↩
  8. Page 93United Statesv.One Ford Coupe,272 U.S. 321,327. ↩
  9. Page 94United Statesv.Constantine,296 U.S. 287,293. ↩