Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/159

 BDNKLE V. CITIZBNS' INS, CO;.OF PITTSBUBGH, PEKN. 147 �such assessmentBi says : "Is he precluded by any general rule of law from setting up such a defence ? Has an assesB- ment of a tax so far the force and effect of a judicial sentence that it canuot be attacked collaterally, but only by some direct proceeding, such as an appeal or certiorari, for setting it aside? It is undoubtedly true that the decisions of an assegsor or board of assessors, like those of ail other admin- istrative commissioners, are of a gwasi-judicialcharacter, and cannot be questioned collaterally when made within the scope of their jurisdiction. But if they assess persons, property, or operations not taxable, such assessment is illegal, and cannot form the basis of an action at law for the collection of the tax, however efficacious it may be for the. protection of min- isterial officers eharged with the duty of actual collection by virtue of a regular warrant or authoi-ity therefor," �In the case of Stoll v. Pepper, 97 U. S. 438, a case -which involved the validity of an assessment for overprodaction of spirits precisely as in this case, the supreme court held : "If a distiller uses material for distillation in exceas of the esti- mated capacity of his distiUery, aecording to the survey made and returned under the provisions of the law regulating that subject, but in the regnlar course of his business pays the taxes upon his entire production, he cannot be again assessed at the rate of 70 cents on every gallon of spirits; which the exeess of material used should have produced aecording to the rules of estimation prescribed by the internai revenue law." , This decision is conclusive upon the question of the illegality of the assessment in this case. The commissioner had no legal power or authority, under the facts of this case, to make the assessment. Ail the proceedings which f ollowed tiie assessment were therefore illegal, and of no binding force or effect against the plaintiff. The possession was therefore never changed by virtue of "legal process." Such proceed- ings had no effect upon the polioy. And r0ferring back to the first defence they did not create such a lien upon the propertyj the non-disclosure of which would avoid the polioy. That .such proceedings may be attacked o(dlaterally I think ��� �