Reporter's Statement of the Case this claim is made, and the serial numbers of packages of spirits involved are as follows: VI. Upon receipt of the aforesaid checks the collector of internal revenue duly issued and mailed to the plaintiff at its distillery a tax-paid spirits stamp for each of the said 428 packages, the said stamps being substantially in form as follows: VII. On the date the checks were received by the collector, as aforesaid, and at the time the tax-paid stamps were issued, the collector issued his order to the storekeeper at the dis Reporter's Statement of the Case tillery for delivery of the spirits to the distiller, the said order being printed on Form 179, hereinbefore referred to, and being in form as follows: SIR: The full amount of taxes due and owing on the distilled spirits described in the above entry for withdrawal of the distiller, having this day been paid to me, you are hereby directed to deliver said spirits to Collector. By. Dept. Coll'r. Storekeeper. VIII. On September 22, 1920, the said Cedarbrook Distillery and Distillery Warehouse No. 44 were destroyed by accidental fire and without any fraud, collusion, or negligence of the owner thereof, which was the plaintiff herein. In said fire all of the said 428 packages of spirits were destroyed with the exception of one package, being Serial No. 246369, which was not destroyed. IX. All of the certified checks hereinbefore listed were delivered to the said collector of internal revenue prior to the time of the said fire and the destruction of the spirits thereby as aforesaid. X. At the time of said fire, the stamps covered by checks Nos. 189737, 189876, 189909, 189931, and 190100 had been received and were in the possession of the United States storekeeper gauger located at the distillery warehouse, and the stamps covered by checks Nos. 190536, 190545, 190558, 190573, and 190583 had not yet been received at the distillery warehouse. None of the said stamps, whether received or not, had been affixed to the packages for which they were issued nor had the said stamps been in any way canceled, nor had the said packages of spirits been removed from the said bonded warehouse. XI. Said package bearing Serial No. 246369 was not destroyed and was on or about October 6, 1920, transferred to bonded warehouse No. 1 maintained by the Louisville Public Warehouse Co. at Louisville, Kentucky, and is now located in said warehouse. The stamp which was issued for Opinion of the Court the said package has never been affixed thereto or canceled and the amount represented thereby is included in the total sum claimed herein. XII. On or about October 1, 1920, plaintiff made and filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue its claim and application for the refund of the sum of $35,993.76, paid as aforesaid, and said claim was filed in accordance with the provisions of law and the regulations established by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue pursuant thereto, and in connection therewith and as a part of said claim the plaintiff forwarded the said stamps to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to be surrendered upon allowance of the claim. XIII. On or about May 5, 1924, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue rejected and denied the said claim on the ground that there was no provision of law authorizing said refund, and said stamps were returned to plaintiff pursuant to its request that they be returned for use in this proceeding, and said stamps are filed in this court together with this stipulation in an envelope marked "Exhibit C." XIV. No refund of any part of the above-named sum paid to the collector of internal revenue has been made to plaintiff and the amount now claimed as due it is $35,993.76, subject to verification and correction of any errors which may be found in computing said sum. The court decided that plaintiff was not entitled to recover. CAMPBELL, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff owned and maintained a distillery and also a bonded warehouse, known as the Cedarbrook Distillery. It had produced at this distillery and placed in the warehouse certain distilled spirits, including the 428 packages which are referred to in this case. The distillery, warehouse, and all of the 428 packages of distilled spirits, save one package, were destroyed by accidental fire without any fraud or collusion or negligence on the part of the owner thereof, on September 22, 1920. Opinion of the Court Prior to this date of September 22, the plaintiff had given notice to the collector of internal revenue, at Louisville, that it proposed to withdraw from the bonded warehouse the 428 packages of spirits in several distinct lots and made due entries for the withdrawal thereof. Following this notice, the spirits had been regauged by a United States gauger upon order of the collector. Pursuant to its entries for withdrawal, the plaintiff from time to time delivered to the collector ten certified checks for the amount of the tax computed on the taxable gallons disclosed by the regauge. The dates of the notices and of entry for withdrawal were at different times between August 5, 1920, and September 21, 1920, both inclusive; the dates of the corresponding checks to cover were between August 9 and September 22, both inclusive. It is stipulated by the parties that all of the certified checks were delivered to the collector of internal revenue prior to the fire and destruction of the spirits mentioned, and stamps covered by five of the checks dated August 9 to August 30, inclusive, had been received and were in possession of the United States storekeeper at the distillery, while the stamps covered by the five checks dated, two of them September 20, two of them September 21, and one of them September 22, had not been received at the distillery warehouse when the fire occurred. These five checks aggregated the sum of $31,641.28, while the earlier five checks, so far as they were applicable to the packages in question here, represented a smaller amount-approximately $4,200. Whether the stamps forwarded by the collector had been actually issued by him at the time of the fire does not appear except as to those above stated to have been in the storekeeper's possession when the fire occurred. The plaintiff sues for the sum of $35,993.76 as representing the amount or value of the stamps issued in obedience to the notices and entries of withdrawal, the regauge of the spirits, and payments made as stated. It refers to several statutes as granting authority for its suit, but its principal reliance is the act of May 12, 1900, 31 Stat. 177, as amended by the act of June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 506, which authorizes Opinion of the Court the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, to "redeem such of the stamps, issued under authority of law to denote the payment of any internal-revenue tax, as may have been spoiled * * rendered useless or unfit for the purpose intended, or for which the owner may have no use." The redemption authorized by the act may be made by refunding "the amount or value to the owner thereof." The plaintiff duly applied to the commissioner for a refund of the amount of the stamps and offered to surrender the stamps upon the allowance of the claim. The commissioner rejected the claim as not being within the meaning of the statute. Plaintiff files the stamps in this court and asks judgment for the amount of them. The stamps are severally applicable to a specified package. They can not be used on any other package. The packages of spirits have been destroyed and the stamps are therefore of no use to the owner. The act of May 12, 1900, as amended is broad in its terms, but we do not think it authorizes a refund of the amount of the stamps here in question or the repayment to plaintiff of the amount of the taxes paid upon the distilled spirits. This latter course is what would result from a redemption of the stamps. The distilled spirits were liable to be and were taxed when they entered the distillery warehouse. See Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries, 288 Fed. 326, 329; Thompson case, 142 U. S. 471. This tax was to be paid when withdrawn. The payments by plaintiff were payments of this tax. The language of the statute providing for payment "when withdrawn" has the same meaning that the expression in the earlier acts making the tax payable upon "removal." See Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries, supra. The tax must be paid before the spirits can be withdrawn or removed. Plaintiff paid the tax before the fire which destroyed the spirits, but they were plaintiff's property before the fire and were liable to the tax. See Farrell case, 99 U. S. 221, 224. The act of May 27, 1872, 17 Stat. 162, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury in certain cases to abate or refund |