CHEANG-KEE
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
A customs duties dispute reached the Supreme Court through a writ of error from the Circuit Court of California, where the defendant challenged the trial court's admission of witness testimony to contradict new matter in the answer, and objected to the judgment's specification that payment be made in gold and silver coin. The Court affirmed the judgment, holding that under California statute adopted by the federal court, new matter in an answer is deemed controverted by the opposing party and subject to contradiction by witnesses at trial, and that the judgment's designation of legal tender was both proper and necessary.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The first two exceptions — those relating to the motion and order for judgment, and to the motion and order to set aside what had been directed — relate to matters wholly within the discretion of the Circuit Court, and are not reviewable here. This is not merely settled by repeated decisions, but is expressly directed by an act of Congress prescribing the limits of this court’s jurisdiction upon writs of error to the Circuit Court of California.* The third exception related to the examination of witnesses on the trial. This exception must rest on the assumption that inasmuch as the pleadings consisted only of claim and answer, the answer must be taken as true, and could not be contradicted by witnesses. But the statute of the State, which has been adopted as a rule by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, expressly declares that new matter in an answer shall, on trial, be deemed controverted by the adverse party.† Under that statute the answer of the defendant below could not be taken as true. "Witnesses, therefore, were properly examined. The only other exception is to the form of the judgment, which was originally for the amount due, payable in gold coin, for duties; and afterwards, during the term, amended by order of the court so as to make it “ payable in gold and silver coin, for duties.” The objection is to the amendment and to the statement in the judgment that it is “ payable in gold and silver coin, for duties.” The amendment, made during the term, was clearly within the power of the court. The statement merely declared the legal effect of the judgment. The whole case shows that the judgment was for duties on imports, and nothing but gold and silver coin has been made a legal tender for this description of indebtedness to the government. This statement, therefore, is strictly correct, and though unnecessary, could not affect the validity of the judgment. Affirmed with costs. * Act of February 19,1864, | 7. † 2 General Laws of California, § 5006.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1914)…the decided cases in nearly all of the state courts ‘of last resort. On the other hand, the Government relies upen four cases in this court where interest was allowed as a matter of course on taxes due the United States. Cheang-Kee v. United States, 3 Wall. 320; Railroad Co. v. United States, 101 U. S. 543; Litchfield v. County of Webster, 101 U. S. 773; United States v. Erie Railway Company, 106 [*285] U. S. 327. We say as a matter of course because in the cases referred to, the subject was not discussed…
-
Watts v. Unione Austriaca di Navigazione C., 248 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1918)
-
Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1876)…limited one and for a brief period, as in the case before the court, it is error to apply that rule arbitrarily and without any qualification. Packet Co. v. Sickles, 19 Wall. 617; Burdell et al. v. Denig et al., 92 U. S. 716; Suffolk Co. v. Hayden, 3 Wall. 320. Four of the pans in this case were used throughout without wings, and wings in most of the- others were used only for a shbrt time, and in none of the pans for more than six weeks. [*71] Under these circumstances, it was error to charge the jury,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence