Opinion of the Court. put on dividends, interest paid in the ordinary way, and profits used for construction or carried to some fund. This was a classification of the income of the corporation for the purposes of taxation. In the present case there has been no assessment of a tax, but the United States have sued to recover such sum as, upon an investigation of the accounts of the company, it shall appear ought to have been paid. The burden of proof is upon the government. No more can be recovered than is shown to be due. In presenting the evidence no attempt seems to have been made by the United States to state annual accounts and ascertain the amount to be paid on that basis. The court has found that between July 1st, 1864, and November 30th, 1869, earnings to the amount of $168,707.22 had been used for construction or carried to the account of some fund, but it has also found that between the same dates the company lost $22,000 by depreciation in its investments in bonds, and $5,225 by depreciation in the stock of a cotton-press company. In the view we take of the law, these sums should have been deducted from the earnings as ascertained before fixing the amount of profits on which the tax was to be paid. It is not stated with certainty in the finding at what dates the losses actually occurred which are represented by the items of $51,155.44, depreciation in the value of book accounts and choses in action, and $106,014.62, depreciation in the value of the street connection track. For this reason we are unable to decide whether these losses, or any part of them, should be deducted. As the omission to make the finding sufficiently specific in this particular undoubtedly arose from the fact that the court ruled as a matter of law that no deductions could be made on account of losses of this character, we will remand the cause, so that further inquiry may be had on that point. This we have authority to do under section 701 of the Revised Statutes, which allows a cause to be remanded for "such further proceedings to be had in the inferior court as the justice of the case may require." The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to deduct from the amount of carnings, as ascertained rpon the former trial, the items of Opinion of the Court. $22,000, depreciation in the value of bonds, and $5,225, depreciation in the value of cotton-press stock, together with such other sums included in the items of $51,155.44, depreciation in book accounts and choses in action, and $106,014.62, depreciation in value of the street connection track, as, upon further hearing, shall be found to represent losses accruing to the company between July 1st, 1864, and November 30th, 1869, and to render judgment only for such an amount of tax as shall appear to be due upon that basis. WRIGHT & Others v.. UNITED STATES. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. Decided April 16th, 1888. Internal Revenue-Statutes. When an indorsement is made upon a distiller's bond, "We hereby accept the within survey and consider the same as binding upon us on and after this date," which is signed by the obligees in the bond, the parties thereby waive the delivery of a copy of the survey, and the difference between the capacity of the still and the returns of production may be recovered in a suit on the bond. Suit upon a distiller's bond to recover internal revenue tax. Mr. R. McP. Smith, for plaintiff in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This was an action on a distiller's bond, to recover the difference between taxes assessed according to the producing capacity of the distillery and those calculated on the reports of production. The defence was that a copy of the official survey had not been served on the distillers. Section 3264 of the Revised Statutes provides for a survey of the distillery by the collector and a written report thereof in triplicate, "of which one copy shall be delivered to the distiller, one copy shall be re Syllabus. tained by the collector, and one copy shall be transmitted to the commissioner of internal revenue, and the survey shall take effect upon the delivery of such copy to the distiller." In Peabody v. Stark, 16 Wall. 240, it was held, following the rulings of the commissioner of internal revenue, that the distiller was not liable for the capacity tax until a copy of the survey had been delivered to him. In the present case it appeared that no copy of the survey had ever been delivered to the distillers, but when the bond sued on was executed the distillers signed the following indorsement, written on the report of the survey which had been made: "We hereby accept the within survey, and consider the same as binding upon us on and after this date, September 12th, 1873. John B. Wright. Thomas Tucker." The court below decided that this indorsement was in law a waiver of a delivery of a copy of the report to the distillers, and that the tax was consequently collectible. To this we agree. The language of the act is that "the survey shall take effect upon the delivery of such copy to the distiller." This is equivalent to saying that the survey shall be binding on the distiller when the copy is delivered to him. When, therefore, the distiller in this case accepted the survey and stipulated that it was binding on him, he in effect said that he would consider the survey as having effect without the formal delivery of a copy. This he might do. The judgment is affirmed. LEWIS v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Decided April 16th, 1883. Municipal Bonds-Municipal Corporations-Ratification. 1. Ottawa v. Cary, ante, 110, reaffirmed. 2. Unless power has been given by the legislature to a municipal corporation to grant pecuniary aid to railroad corporations, bonds issued for that pur Statement of Facts. pose, and bearing evidence of the purpose on their face, are void, even in the hands of bona fide holders. 8. Corporate ratification, without authority from the legislature, cannot make a municipal hond valid, which was void when issued for want of legislative power to make it. Action to recover interest due on municipal bonds issued in aid of a railway. Defence that the charter of the municipality and the laws affecting it conferred no power to issue such bonds, and that the bonds were issued without authority and are void. The charter of Shreveport contained no express au.hority for the issue of such bonds. The parties agreed to the facts on the hearing below. The following are the most material parts of that agreement: "2. That on the 26th of June, 1872, an ordinance was introduced and passed by the city council of Shreveport, authorizing purchase of real estate by the city to be donated to the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, upon which depots and machine shops were to be permanently established and maintained by said company, and providing that for purchase of said property 260 fortyyear $1,000.00 bonds should be issued and sold on market, said bonds bearing interest at rate of 8% per annum, payable semiannually, with coupons attached; providing further that said ordinance should be submitted to the vote of the people for their ratification and approval, and it is admitted that said ordinance was never considered by said council on any other day prior to said 26th June, 1872, and that it further provided for levying a tax to pay interest and create a sinking fund for redemption of bonds. "3. That, in pursuance of said ordinance, an election was held in said city on July 1st, 1872, and said ordinance was then and there ratified and approved by the voters, 705 votes being cast for said ordinance and 3 against it. "4. That in pursuance of said ordinance and said vote ratifying same, the said city issued 260 bonds, each for $1,000, payable at 40 years, bearing interest at 8 %, payable semi-annually, with interest coupons attached, said bonds bearing date July 1st, 1872, a copy of which said bonds is attached to and made part of plaintiff's petition, a copy of coupons attached to said bonds being set out in and made a part of plaintiff's petition. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. "17. That plaintiff acquired ninety of said bonds with coupons attached, in open market, being bonds to which the interest coupons sued on belong, paying therefor 85 cents on the dollar, and that said plaintiff is bona fide holder of said bonds and of interest coupons sued on for value. "18. It is admitted that the Texas & Pacific Railway Company has not now and never had any charter from the State of Louisiana, or any right arising from any statute of that State passed in favor of said company, but that said company held a lease from the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Texas R. R. Co., not yet expired, of the railroad from Shreveport to Texas line. "19. It is admitted that the ordinance of June 26th, 1872, is the only ordinance of said city authorizing the issue of said 260 fortyyear bonds." The court below held that the bonds were issued without lawful authority, and were null and void. The plaintiff below excepted, and brought the case on error here. Mr. William M. Grant for plaintiff in error.-I. It was the general policy of the State of Louisiana to allow municipal corporations to purchase, hold, and dispose of real property to the same extent as individuals, without express grants. Edey V. Shreveport, 26 La. Ann. 636. This case shows that the discretion of the city council extended even to a donation to the Texas & Pacific Railroad Company, a foreign corporation. -II. Where a corporation is authorized to do any act and no mode is pointed out for its exercise, it may adopt any which in its judgment will best secure the purpose contemplated. Southern Life Ins. & Trust Company v. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110; City of Galena v. Corwith, 48 'Ill. 423; State Board v. Citizens, &c., Railway Company, 47 Ind. 407. The power in a municipal corporation to purchase carries with it power to incur indebtedness for the purchase money, and to issue its negotiable obligations promising to pay the indebtedness at a future day. The People v. Brennan, 39 Barb. 522-45; 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 3d ed., § 117, p. 144; Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, vol. 2, p. 461; Mills v. Gleason, 11 Wis. 470; Bank v. Chillicothe, 7 Ohio, 354; State ex rel. Dean v. Madi |