
    LOUIS MANKEL v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 14253.
    Decided March 17, 1884. ]
    
      On the Facts.
    
    Louis Mantel files his claim for refund of taxes with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Congress pass an act directing payment to a number of persons by name whose claims are on file. In the Act the claimant’s name is given as Lewis Martel.
    I. The Act 29th July, 1882 (22 Stat. L., p. 723), directing a refund of taxes to various persons by name is to be administered according to its intent; and the claimant, by name Louis Mantel, should be paid the money appropriated for him by the act though it misnames him Lewis Martel. (See Jordan’s Case, p. 114.)
    II. Statutes are sometimes to be expounded against the letter to preserve the intent.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    This action the claimant brought by the voluntary filing of his petition. The following are the facts as found by the court t
    I. The action of the officers of the Treasury Department, in relation to the claimant’s demand, appears in the following documents:
    “SCHEDULE OE CLAIMS EOB THE REFUNDING- OE TAXES.
    
      UA Schedule of claims for the refunding of taxes erroneously assessed and paid*, which have ieen examined ond allowed.
    
    
      
    
    
      “I hereby certify that the foregoing claims for the refunding of taxes erroneously assessed and paid have been examined and allowed under private act approved July 29, 1882.
    “ EL C. Rogers,
    
      “Acting Commissioner.
    
    “ Oeeice oe Internal Revenue, April 27,1883.”
    “Treasury Department,
    “Oeeice oe Internal Revenue,
    “ Washington, April 12,1883.
    “Hon. Charles J. Folger,
    
      “Secretary of the Treasury:
    
    “Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith the claim of Louis Mankel, for the refunding of $868.50, tax alleged to have been collected from him in February, 1865, on beer, contrary to the provisions of regulations, special No. 16.
    “ This beer appears to have been manufactured and sold at Shelbyville, Bedford County, Tennessee, between May and October, 1864.
    “ Bedford County, Tennessee, was in 1864 in the then second district of that State, the first assessor for which district was appointed May 5, 1864. The first assistant assessor for the division, including Bedford Co., was not, however, appointed until January 1, 1865.
    “The provision of special No. 16, under which this claim is made, reads as follows:
    “ ‘In the States of Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana collection districts were some time since established, with such boundaries as to include territory in which it has but recently become possible to enforce the laws of the United States. In those districts the rule laid down,above will be so modified as to require the assessment and collection of the first taxes which become due after the establishment of assessment divisions in the particular locality.’ ”
    “ 1 have been unable to obtain record evidence of the assessment and payment of the amount claimed, but am satisfied from the receipt for the amount filed with the claim that the amount was paid as alleged, and have little doubt that it was duly accounted for and was paid into the United States Treasury.
    “ I am also satisfied that the amount was collected contrary to the provisions of regulations, special No. 16, issued June 19, 1865.
    “The claim was received at this office May 31, 1873.
    “ Under an act, private No. 176, approved July 29, 1882, you are authorized and directed to remit, refund, and pay back to Lewis Markel $868.50, assessed and collected contrary to the provisions of the regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury under date of June 21, 1865, and published in special circular No. 16. The discrepancy in the surname was without doubt the result of a clerical error in this office. Mr. Mankel had signed his name in his application for the refunding of the tax very indistinctly, and his signature was read Louis Markel, and so reported to you by me on my report on this class of cases, dated March 18, 1882. A closer examination and comparison with later signatures show that the true name is Louis Mankel.
    “Very respectfully,
    “Creen B. Baum,
    
      1 ‘ Commissioner.”
    “Office of the Secretary,
    “ Washington, D. C.: April 24, 1883.
    •“ Commissioner of Internal Bevenhe,
    
      “Treasury Department:
    
    “ Sir: With your letter of the 12th instant you transmitted for the action of the Secretary the claim of Louis Mankel, for the refunding of $868.50, tax alleged to have been collected from him in February, 1865, on béer, contrary to the provisions of special No. 16, issued by tlie Secretary of the Treasury June 21, 1865. The claim is presented under an act for the relief of citizens of Tennessee, approved July 29, 1882, and published in list of private acts, &c., of 1st session of the 47th Congress, chapter 359, page 77.
    “Said special 16 required ‘the assessment and collection of the first taxes which become due after the establishment of assessment divisions in the particular locality.’
    “ You state that claimant resided in Bedford Co., Tennessee, and that the first assistant assessor for the division including that, county was not appointed until January 1, 1865. It appears that the tax in question, though paid in February, 1865, was' assessed and collected by an officer who belonged to a ■division in which Bedford County was not included.
    “ You also state that you are ‘ satisfied that the amount was paid as alleged, and have little doubt that it was duly accounted for and was paid into the United States Treasury.’
    “ In view of these statements and the evidence submitted in support of the claim, I hereby, by virtue of the authority con-i 'rred by said act, direct that said sum of $868.50 be refunded aid paid back to said Louis Mankel out of any moneys in th Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
    :By some error claimant’s name was printed Louis Markel in said act. It appears that no claim like this from Bedford County, Tennessee, was filed in that name, and that when the list of names included in said act was sent to Congress the name of this claimant was-reported as Louis Markel, the letter m in his signature to the claim being easily mistaken for an r.
    
      ‘ ‘ Very respectfully,
    “John C. New,
    
      “Acting Secretary.”
    
      “Report on Miscellaneous Internal-Revenue Accounts.
    “ No. 34734
    “Treasury Department,
    “Fieth Auditor’s Oeeice,
    “ May 3rd, 1883.
    “I hereby certify that I have examined and adjusted an account between the United States Comm’r of Int. Rev., and find that the sum of eight hundred sixty-eight -^0\ dollars is due from the United States, as follows:
    “ For the funding of taxes erroneously assessed and collected,, as per schedule No. 932, private act No. 76, approved July 29, 1882, payable to Louis Mankel, 2nd district, Tenn., care or Comm’r Int. Rev., present.
    “ Pay out of the appropriation ‘ for the relief of citizens of Tennessee,’ app’d July 29, 1882. As appears from statement and vouchers herewith transmitted for'decision of the First. Comptroller of the Treasurv thereon.
    “ $868.50.
    “J. B. Mann,
    
      “Acting Auditor.”
    II. Louis Mankel, the claimant, is the same person decribed in the act of July 29, 1882, chapter 359, as Lewis Markel, who. filed his claim in the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue prior to June 6, 1873, as therein referred to (and whose name was there erroneously read and copied), and he has never been paid.
    III. By request of the defendants the following additional facts were found:
    No assessment for the tax described in the documents aforesaid was made by any assistant assessor appointed for or assigned to the assessment division wherein the claimant resided or the beer was manufactured. No record or other official evidence of the payment of the amount named in the petition into the public Treasury is shown, except the statement of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in his letter aforesaid. A receipt for the said amount was given to the claimant by an assistant assessor, acting as a deputy collector by special authority from the collector, which receipt appears upon its face to be for money paid to said assistant-assessor as internal-revenue tax due the United States.
    
      
      Mr. Charles F. Benjamin for the claimant:
    The misnomer in the statute is governed by the maxim; Falsa demonstrate non nocet (Sedgwick on Statutes, p. 416). The statute is a positive direction to pay a specific sum of money to a designated party {Jordan’s Case, December term, 1883).
    
      Mr. George L. Douglass (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants.
   Weldon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Louis Mankel, brings suit to recover the sum of $868.50 for taxes paid by him in the year 1864, in the State-of Tennessee, and which, he claims, were intended to be refunded by the act approved July 29, 1882. (22 Stat. L., 723.)

In said act the person for whose use and benefit the appropriation is made is named and described as Louis Markel; but the second finding alleges that Louis Mankel, the claimant, is identical with the person described in the act of Congress.

The question of identity being clearly settled in favor of the-claimant, is he entitled to recover in this proceeding1?

There is no doubt from the finding of the court as to the intent and purpose of Congress in the enactmentjof the law, which was to pay to the claimant the sum of $868.50.

If we construe this statute so as to effectuate the intention-of the legislature, we must find in favor of the claimant; and the only question for this court to determine is, do the rules off interpretation and construction permit us to disregard the difference between the name in fact, and as expressed by the-orthography of the statute.

In the case of Watervliet Turnpike Company v. McKean (6 Hill,, 619, 620) it is said:

“A statute is not to be nullified because some of its provisions are absurd, repugnant, or untrue.
“It should be so construed as to make it effective rather than to destroy it. (Britton v. Ward, 2 Rolle’s Reports, 127; Moore v., Hussy, Hobb Rep., 93, 97.) If enough remains after rejecting the parts which are inappropriate to show what was intended by the legislation, that will suffice. In the Chancellors of Oxford Case (10 Rep., 57) it was resolved that in an act of Parliament the ‘ misnomer of a corporation when the express intention appears shall not avoid the act, no more than a will, for Parliament, testament, et arhitramentum are to be taken according-to the minds and intentions of those who are parties to them.. And, therefore, when the description of a corporation in an act of Parliament or in a will is sucb that the true corporation intended is apparent and it is impossible to be intended of any ■other corporation, although the right name of the corporation (which is requisite to be expressed in grants and deeds) is not precisely followed, yet the act of Parliament and will shall take ■effect.’
“ Constructions of statutes are to be made of the whole act according to the intention of the makers, and sometimes are to be expounded against the letter to preserve the intent.
Instruments in writing are not made void because made to a party by a wrong name, and any misnomer or apparent variance may be reconciled and explained in pleading by- averment and avoided in effect by proof.” (Peake v. Wabash Railroad Company, 18 Ill., 90; Angell and Ames on Corporations, 512 to 516; Hurd et al. v. Corlus et al., 18 Ill. Referred to in Peake’s Case.)

Although there may be some question as to whether from the finding the money in controversy was actually paid in the Treasury, all questions of that kind were settled in favor of "the claimant by the act of Congress, as this court has held in the case of Edward L. Jordan v. The United States, decided at ■the present term of the court.

Applying the act of July, 1882, according to the evident intent and purpose of the law-making power, and upon the faith of what we regard as correct and conservative rules of construction and application, it is the opinion of this court that the ■claimant is entitled to recover the sum of $868.50, and for that amount judgment will be entered.  