
    THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, for the use, of certain insurance companies, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [32 C. Cls. R., 207; 166 U. S., 468.]
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    Manufacturers of tobacco purchase a large amount of revenue stamps. The factory is destroyed by fire, and with it stamps of the value of $4,100.10. The insurers pay the manufacturers for the stamps destroyed, and they, on behalf of the insurers, file a claim in which they allege that they have not been paid by the Government therefor. The collector of internal revenue rejects the claim, for the reason that the manufacturers have been reimbursed by the insurers. The suit is brought for their use.
    The court below decides—
    1. Under the common law practice, a suit may be brought in the name of the party in whom the legal title is to the use of the party to-whom the real and substantial ownership has passed, and such a suit may be maintained against the Government.
    2. The provision of the Revised Statutes (§ 3477) making void transfers and assignments of claims against the United States relates to voluntary assignments, and does not extend to transfers by operations of law or interfere with the equitable doctrine of subrogation.
    3. Internal-revenue stamps are not sold to manufacturers in payment of tax, but for the purpose of being used when a tax becomes payable.
    
      4. The policy and purpose of the Revised Statutes (§ 3426) authorizing a refund for stamps destroyed is to enable manufacturers to furnish themselves with stamps before the necessity of immediate use arises.
    5. The fact contemplated by the statute is the destruction of the stamps. When that is found by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the party is entitled to reimbursement.
    6. Subrogation is the putting of a third person who has paid a debt in the place of the creditor to whom he has paid it. An insurer paying for stamps destroyed becomes subrogated and entitled through the manufacturer to whatever refund he is entitled to. The judicial history of the Act 86 February, 1853 (10 Stat. L., 17; Rev. Stat., 3477), reviewed.
    Tbe decision of tbe court below was affirmed on tbe same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Pbckham

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court, April 12, 1897.  