Peabody, Collector v. Stark

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the coiirt. The question whether a duty imposed by statute upon a ministerial or executive officer, the performance or nou-performa'nce of which affects the rights of others, is merely directory to, the officer and only confers on parties injured a right of action agai.hst the officer, or on the other hand, is a condition essential to fix the rights of other parties as between themselves, is a very common, but often a very difficult one to decide. *243 Its decision depends mainly upon a consideration of the nature of the du]y thus imposed in its relation to the rights of parties to be affected, but often also upon the proper construction of the language employed in the statute as being chiefly directed to the officer, or as declaratory of a principle governing the rights of parties. Looking to the statute before us in the former aspect, the duty of depositing the copy of the survey with the distiller, is not in terms imposed upon the assessor, or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; though the direction that this shall be done is made emphatic by being repeated as to the additional survey, if one shall be made. And while it is a fair inference that it was the duty of the assessor to deposit the copy with the distiller, it was so far.an act which could be legally performed by another, that we do not doubt It -would have been valid if performed by the commissioner or an agent of his, the survey being duly certified. It can hardly be said, then, that the statute is exclusively directed to the assessor. The purpose of the requirement of delivering a copy to the distiller, which is manifestly to'make certain to him that he will be held liable for a definite number of gallons, at all events, whether his distillery makes it or not, affords an argument of weight, that until he has this official information, á rule so harsh was not to be applied to him. On the other hand, it is said that this special provision was only intended to secure one mode by which the assessed capacity of his distillery should come to the knowledge of the distiller, and if he is correctly informed from any other source of the number of gallons per day at which that capacity has been fixed by a legal survey, it is all that is necessary to govern his action. • In the absence of a clear conviction on the part of the members of the court on either side of the proposition in which all can freely unite, we incline to adopt the uniform ruling of the office of the internal revenue commissioner, holding that the distiller is not liable under the eighty per cent, clause, until a copy of the survey in which the tax is *244 assessed has been delivered to him as provided in section ten. It is made to appear to us in a very satisfactory manner that such has been the unvarying rule of that office since the act went iut'o effect, and while we do not hold such ruling as in general obligatory upon us, we are content to adopt it in this case for the reason already mentioned, as well as for its obvious fairness to the government and to the distiller. Judgment aeeirmed.