dеlivered the opinion of the court. After reciting the facts in; the foregoing language he continued:
The assignment of error is that judgment was given for the defendants, whereas it should have been given for the plaintiff. We think the judgmеnt was right.
It is clear, even upon a cursory reading, that the well-considered and minute provisions of the Revisеd Statutes found in chapter 4, entitled “ Distilled Spirits,” of Title XXXY., entitled “Internal. Revenue,” were adopted with one purpose only, namely, to secure the payment of the tax imposed by law upon distilled spirits.
All the regulations for the manufacture and storage, the marking, branding, numbering, and stamping with tax stamps, of distilled spirits, and all the penalties,-forfeitures, fines, and imprisonments prescribed by the chapter mentioned, have that end only in view. If the-tаx on distilled spirits were repealed, all the ingenious and complicated provisions of the chaрter would become useless and insensible.
Among them is the requirement that when spirits are deposited in a distillery wаrehouse, the owner should give bond conditioned that he will pay the tax due thereon within one year and bеfore the spirits are removed.
It is clear that the object of exacting this bond is to make sure the pаyment of the tax. It would seem, therefore, that if the tax is paid within the time limited, either by the distiller or out of the prоceeds of the spirits subject to the tax, the object for which the bond was taken is accomplished, and it becomes functus officio, and the obligors are discharged.
The contention of the counsel for the government is that the forfeiture of the spirits on whiсh a tax is due for the fraudulent acts of:the distiller in seeking to evade its payment is a punishment for the offenсe, criminal or quasi criminal, of the distiller, and that the application of the proceeds of the forfеited spirits to the payment of the .tax cannot have the effect of relieving him from the obligation of his bond.'
Such, in our opinion, is not the true construction of the law regulating the imposition and collection of the cax on distilled spirits.
*41 Section 3458 of the Revised Statutes, provides that
“ Where any whiskey or tobacco or other article of manufacture or prоduce requiring brands, stamps, or marks of whatever kind to be placed thereon, shall be sold upon distraint, forfеiture, or other process provided by law, the same not haying been branded, stamped, or marked as rеquired by law, the officer selling the same shall, upon sale thereof, fix, or cause to be affixed, the brands, stаmps, or'marks so required, and deduct the expense thereof from the proceeds of such sale.”
Thе bill of exceptions shows, and the Circuit Court found, that this was done in this case within the year following the executiоn of the bond. ■ As directed by the statute, the marshal procured from the collector of internal revenue the stamps necessary to pay the tax on the spirits sold, and placed them on the packagеs in which the spirits were contained. The collector was authorized by law to deliver the stamps only to bе used for the purpose of paying the taxes. Rev. Stat., §§ 3313, 3314. It is clear, therefore, that the affixing of the stamрs to the packages by the marshal was intended by the law to be a payment of the tax, and was' a pаyment. The bond on which the suit is brought, having been exacted for the sole purpose of securing the paymеnt of the taxes, was therefore- discharged.
We think the contention of the plaintiff in error cannot be sustained for another reason. The tax on distilled spirits is made by the statute a first lien thereon. Rev. Stat,, § 3251. As two of the dеfendants are sureties', .they have the right to insist that, when the spirits are áe'íz^cl and sold by the United States' for any reason whatever* -the proceeds shall be first applied to the payment of the tax. It was said by this court.-in thе case of
United States
v.
Boecker,
Judgment affirmed.
The case of the United States, plaintiff in error, v. James M. Sutton and James F. R. Clapp, No. 852, in error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina, was argued at the same time with the foregoing case, and the same questions were presented, by the record. As the judgment of the court below in that case was in favor of the defendants, it follows that it must be affirmed.