THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
ONE PACKAGE OF MERCHANDISE. LION, PINSARD, AND CO., CLAIMANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The United States sought forfeiture of imported merchandise invoiced below actual value to defraud customs duties, and although a jury found for the government, the district court arrested judgment for the claimants based on the repeal of a statutory provision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower court erred in relying on the alleged repeal and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the Court's reasoning in a related customs case.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. .Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
The libel of information was filed, in this ease, in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, for the condemnation and forfeiture of one package of goods ;• the entry, as charged, having been made upon an invoice in which the goods were invoiced under their actual cost value at the place of exportation, with a design to defraud the duties. After the evidence was heard, the jury, under the instructions, found a verdict for the plaintiffs.
The court afterwards arrested the judgment for the plaintiffs, and directed a judgment for the claimants, on the ground that the 66th section of the act of 1799 had been repealed; which judgment was affirmed, on error, by the circuit court.
For the reason given in the case of the United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment below must be reversed, and the record remitted to the court for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion of this court.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL dissented.
Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the. United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court in this caiise be and the same is hereby reversed, and that this, cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity to the opinion of this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Young v. Travelers Ins. Co., 119 F.2d 877 (5th Cir. 1941)…peared at the time, and not by a judgment from actual consequences which then were not to be apprehended by a prudent and competent man. This principle nowhere has been more fully recognized than by this court. Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 100, 110, 15 L.Ed. 58, 62; The Star of Hope, 9 Wall. 203, 19 L.Ed. 638. But it is a mistake to say, as the petitioner does, that if the man on the spot, even an expert, does what his judgment approves, he cannot be found negligent. The standard of conduct, whether left…
-
Transmarine Corp. v. Charles H. Levitt & Co., Inc., 25 F.2d 275 (2d Cir. 1928)…ndant. The title having passed, he had nothing to do but collect the contract price when it became due. In that situation' it has long been the law that the buyer consignee has a right of action against the Carrier. Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 100, 15 L. Ed. 58. And no one suggests the contrary. That the seller consignor cannot also sue is not so well settled. The more general rule is that he cannot. Blum v. Caddo, Fed. Cas. No. 1573; Krulder v. Ellison, 47 N. Y. 36, 7 Am. Rep. 402; Union Pac. R. R. v. Me…
-
R.T. Jones Lumber Co., Inc. v. Roen S.S. Co., 270 F.2d 456 (2d Cir. 1959)…th respect to her cargo. The Colima, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 82 F. 665. The respondent contends that the libelant’s consent to stowage on deck precludes recovery, relying for this proposition on the case of Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 100, at pages 114-115, 15 L.Ed. 58. That was a case in which the Court meticulously restricted its holding to a situation in which “the vessel was seaworthy to carry a cargo under deck, and there was no general custom to carry such goods on deck in such a voyage.” But that is not the…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence