Abbildungen der Seite

be taxed only on a final hearing, and | 4. Under $ 1 of the Act of March 26th,
can be taxed but once in a cause. id. 1804, (2 U. S. Stat. at Large, 290),

prescribing punishment for the offence
8. That fee is not taxable, after a de- of wilfully destroying a vessel, it is

cree on an appeal in Admiralty, on a necessary, in order to give to this
motion that the stipulators on the ap- Court jurisdiction of the offence, that
peal pay into Court the amount of it should have been committed upon
their stipulations.

id. the high scas, and not merely upon

waters within the jurisdiction of the
9. A general objection to the aggregate United States.

of charges for clerk's fees and affi-
davits, cannot be noticed, on an ap- 5. Congress, in its criminal legislation,
peal from the taxation of costs. The uses the term high seas in its popular
objections, and the items composing and natural sense, and in contradis-
the charges, must be specified. id. tinction to mere tide-waters flowing

in ports, havens and basins, that are
10. Under the Act of February 26th, land-locked in their position and sub-

1853, (10 U. S. Stat. at Large, 162), ject to territorial jurisdiction. id.
the item of $2.50, allowed as costs
to a solicitor for each deposition taken See CERTIORARI.
and admitted as evidence in a cause,

Circuit Courts, 1.
is not taxable in an Equity suit, ex-

Equity, 7.
cept for the deposition when admitted

a final hearing. Stimpson v.



Parties To Actions, 3, 4.

11. The distinction between an affi.

darit and a deposition, considered.


[blocks in formation]

See COLLISION, 18, 23.

Patents, 9, 89, 54 to 61.
SHIPPING, 15 to 18.

3. But the Federal Courts of inferior

jurisdiction cannot take cognizance
of criminal offences of any grade,
without the express appointment or
direction of positive law.



See Equity.


See CHARTER-Party, 5.


2. Held, also, that, under that Act, rocoa

is not free from duty, under that
name, nor as being a berry or vege-
table "used principally in dyeing or
composing dyes,” under article 6,
section 9, of said Act, (5 U. S. Stat.
at Large, 561), that exemption apply.
ing to the berries or vegetables in their
native state, and not after they are
transmuted, by manufacture, into a
substance which takes a different
denomination in commerce.



See Costs, 2, 10, 11.


See DUTIES, 87, 88.

3. Held, also, that, under that Act, rocoa

is a non-enumerated article, and is
subject to a duty of 20 per cent., under
section 10.




4. An invoice of Irish linens as en.

tered, carried out the prices in gross,

with a credit underwritten, " deduct

discount allowed for cash, 71 per

cent." The invoice prices, with the
See Patents, 8 to 10.

allowance of such discount, gave the
true market value of the linens. The

appraisers found the invoice to be

correct, as made out, and did not

appraise the linens according to their

judgment, but, in obedience to Cir.

cular Instructions from the Secretary
of the Treasury, valued them at the

invoice prices less a discount of only

21 per cent., and duties were exacted

on the remaining 5 per cent. The

usage of the trade was to make up
invoices of linens at nominal prices,

and reduce those to the true market

value by discounts or rebatements :

Held, that, under the usage proved,
1. Rocoa and annatto being articles de the sum to which an invoice was re-

rived from the seed of a vegetable, duced by the rebatement, and not its
rocoa being the product of the seed gross sum, must be regarded as re-
in a crushed state, and annatto being presenting the real invoice price.
an article made from the seed and Gray v. Lawrence,

mixed with other substances, and
the articles being known in com- 6. Held, also, that the Secretary of the
merce by distinct names, and devoted Treasury had no legal power to di-
to different uses, except that annatto, rect the judgment of the appraisers
though chiefly used for culinary pur- in valuing goods, or in adding to or
poses, is occasionally employed in subtracting from the charges in in-
dyeing, while that is the only use to voices, for the purpose of determining
which rocoa is put: Held, that rocoa market values, and that the increase
cannot properly be subjected to duties of the invoice 5 per cent. in amount,
as annatto, under article 4, section 8, in the manner in which it was done,
of the tariff Act of August 30th, was without authority of law. id.
1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 559),
because it bad acquired in commerce 6. An entry or protest made by an
the name of rocoa, and was bought agent is, in law, made by his princi-
and sold in trade under that name pal.

alone, before the Act of 1842.
Schneider v. Lawrence,

115 | 7. Under the Act of February 26th,

1845, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727), / 11. Held, also, that the protest did not
which requires a protest to be in comply with the Act of February
writing, and to be signed by the 26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Stat, at Large,
claimant of goods, a protest signed 727), and that, as it did not set forth
not by the claimant personally, but distinctly the omission of the Collector
by his agent, is sufficient.

id. to order a re-appraisement, or that

the appraisers valued the iron at the
8. Where an invoice of quicksilver from

time of shipment and not at the time
London did not show that the article

of purchase, as grounds of objection
was the produce of Spain, and its in-

to the payment of the duties imposed,
voice value was raised, by appraisal,

the importer could not raise those
to its true value in the London mar.

objections, in an action to recover
back those duties.

ket, and the Collector imposed duty
on the additional value, and a penalty
for the undervaluation, and the im. 12. Where, on an invoice of woollen
porter had not proved or offered to

goods from Paris, the appraisers took,
prove, before the appraisers or the

as a guide to their valuation, the
Collector, that the quicksilver was

market price of the goods in the prin-
the produce of Spain : Held, that the

cipal markets of France at the period
additional duties and the penalty

of exportation, and, on their report, the
were properly imposed and collected,

value was raised 10 per cent, and more
although the quicksilver was in fact

above the invoice value, and, for that
the produce of Spain. Belmont v.

cause, 50 per cent. on the amount of


legal duties was added thereto, pur-
suant to section 17 of the Act of Au-

gust 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat, at Large,
9. Where the invoice value of iron was

564): Held, that under section 16 of
raised by the official appraisers, on the said Act, the appraisers were re-
appraisal, and duty on the increase in

quired to appraise the goods at their
value and a penalty for undervalua- value at the time of purchase, and that
tion were imposed, and the importer, the appraisement was void, and that
on making entry of the iron, served

the duties on the increase in valuation,
on the Collector a written notice

and the penalty, were illegally exact-
protesting “ against the said increased

ed. Morlot v. Lawrence, 122
appraisement, and against the exac-
tion of the said increased duty and 13. Twisted straw, being a stalk of rye
penalty,” but was, at the same time,

straw split into two parts, and those
asked if he desired an appraisement

parts twisted together, and being the
by merchant appraisers, under sec-

raw material used in making straw
tion 17 of the Act of August 30th, laces, which are manufactured into
1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 564),

hats and bonnets, not having been
and answered, that he did not, or did known in commerce, in the United
not ask one, and did not offer the

States, until after the passage of the
fees for such appraisement: Held, tariff Act of July 30th, 1846, cannot
that if the protest might have be charged with duties under any of
amounted to notice of dissatisfaction

the denominations of straw manufac-
with the appraisement under that

tures mentioned in Schedule of
section, bad the notice been delivered

section 11 of that Act, (9 U. S. Stat.
without qualification, yet the asser- at Large, 44, 45), but falls within the
tion of the importer at the time, that

provisions of section 3, and is subject
he did not ask a re-appraisement,

to a duty of 20 per cent., not being
took from it that effect. Fielden v.

otherwise specially provided for in


the Act. Rheimer v. Maxwell, 124
10. Held, also, that the importer was 14. Pulverized waste or flock or shoddy,

bound to offer the appraisers' fees being the refuse thrown off in the
for a re-appraisement, in order to put shearing or finishing of woollen cloths,
the Collector in the wrong for rot having been imported and used in
ordering one, and that, therefore, the that state and under those names,
appraisement by the official apprais- prior to the tariff Act of July 30th,
ers was conclusive as to value. id. 1846, and being known in trade and
Instructions of the Treasury Depart- their manufacturer, when entered,
ment, in imposing duties not warrant- and being consigned for sale to the
ed by law.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


commerce under those names, is lia- protest did not, as required by the
ble to a duty of only 5 per cent., under Act of February 26th, 1845, (5 U.S.
Schedule H of section 11 of that Act, Stat. at Large, 727), set forth dis-
(9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 48, 49), as tinctly the grounds of objection to the

waste or shoddy," and is not liable regularity and legality of the ap-
to a duty of 30 per cent., as a manu- praisements made, or wherein the
facture of wool, under Schedule C of appraisers were prejudiced or not
section 11 of that Act, (Id., 44, 45.) duly qualified. Christ v. Maxwell,
Lennig v. Maxwell,

15. A Collector is not justified by the 21. The goods being the property of

id. party who entered them, and the

Collector having imposed an addi-
16. Under the provisions of 8 61 of the tional duty or penalty of 20 per cent.

Act of March 2d, 1799, (1 U. S. Stat. for such undervaluation: Held, that
at Large, 673), the President has, it was not legally imposed under $ 8
through Circulars from the Treasury of the Act of July 30th, 1846, (9 U.S.
Department, regulated the manner in Stat, at Large, 43), because that Act
which the cost of goods invoiced in a relates only to goods which have been
foreign depreciated currency shall actually purchased in a foreign mar-
be estimated in United States cur- ket, and such qualification is not re-
rency, in order to determine the rate scinded or modified by 8 1 of the Act
of duties thereon. Rich v. Maxwell, of March 3d, 1851, (9^U. S. Stat. at
127 Large, 629).

17. Such regulation is in force in re- 22. Held, also, that such additional duty

spect to depreciations of the Austrian or penalty was not authorized by $ 17
florin, occurring since the passage of of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5
the Act of May 22d, 1846, (9 U. S. U.S. Stat. at Large, 564), or by 13
Stat. at Large, 14).

id. of the Act of March 1st, 1823, (3 U.

S. Stat, at Large, 734), for the like rea-
18. To entitle an importer to an allow. son, and also because the increased

ance for any depreciation of the Aus- duty or penalty specified in each of
trian currency, his invoice must be those acts is 50 per cent., and the Col-
accompanied by a consular certificate lector cannot exact a less or different
of the value of such currency. id.

19. It is not necessary for the Collector 23. Where iron was purchased in Wales,

to demand such certificate from the and sent from there to Liverpool, and
importer; but the importer must offer was afterwards shipped from Liver-
to the Collector such certificate, or a pool to New York: Held, that the
bond to produce it thereafter, in order appraisement of the iron at its market
to be entitled to an allowance for such value in Liverpool at the time of its

id, shipment from that port, was proper,

under section 16 of the Act of August
20. Where, on an appraisal both by 30th, 1842, (; U. S. Stat. at Large,

official appraisers and merchant ap- 563), and section 1 of the Act of
praisers, the invoice value of goods March 3d, 1851, (9 Id., 629), Liver-
was raised, and duties on the increase pool being a principal market of the
were paid under a protest, which ob- country of the production of the iron.
jected " that the appraisals and re- Goddard v. Maxwell,

appraisals were not fairly, impartially,
or legally made, nor by persons un- 24. Requisites of a protest against the
prejudiced and duly qualified to make imposition of duties, under the Act of
them :" Held, that no action could be February 26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Stat, at
maintained to recover back such du. Large, 727), stated.

ties on account of any irregularity
either in selecting or qualifying the 25. Under section 8 of the Act of July
appraisers, or otherwise, because the 30th, 1846, (9U, S. Stat, at Large, 43),


made up.

the additional duty or penalty of 20 even though the general tariff of du-
per cent. for undervaluation in an in- ties be altered.

voice, is chargeable alike whether the
importer avails himself of the privi. 35. Requisites of a protest against the
lege given by the section, and adds imposition of duties, stated. id.
to his invoice, or whether an appraisal
is made upon the invoice as originally 36. The provision of the Constitution of

id. the United States, (Article 1, section

9), that “no tax or duty shall be laid
26. Requisites of a protest against the on articles exported from any State,"

imposition of duties, stated. Sadler does not apply to the imposition of
v. Maxwell,

134 taxes on foreign vessels. Aguirre v.

27. The principles ruled in Goddard v.

Maxwell, (ante, p. 131), as to protests, 37. The Act of June 30th, 1834, (4 U.

id. S. Stat. at Large, 741), concerning

tonnage duty on Spanish vessels, is
28. The law does not require merchant constitutional.

appraisers, in reappraising goods, to
act in the presence of the importer. | 38. The method of determining the
Bangs v. Maxwell,

135 amount of such tonnage duty is

wholly within the discretion of Con-
29. General allegations in a protest, gress.

that the appraisers were prejudiced
or incompetent, need not be regarded 39. An official appraisal, not appealed
by the Collector, when the particu. from, is conclusive as to the dutiable
lars constituting the disqualifications value of goods, when the protest does
charged are not set forth specifically, not point out any violation of law in

id, making the appraisal. Roller v. Max-

30. Requisites of a protest against the
imposition of duties, stated. id. 40. Under section 17 of the Act of Au.

gust 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large,
31. Where a protest against the impo- 564), and section 1 of the Act of

sition of duties after appraisal, pro- March 3d, 1851, (9 Id., 629), the ap-
tested “ against the payment of 15 praisement of goods determines their
per cent, advance, and the penalty dutiable value. Morris v. Maxwell, 143
therefore accruing on velvets con-
tained in the entries, because we are 41. The Act of March 3d, 1851, changes
fully satisfied that they are fully in. the period of valuation by appraise-
voiced by the manufacturers:" Held, ment, from the time of purchase to
that the price fixed by the appraisers the time of exportation.
was conclusive as to the dutiable
value of the goods, (Act of August | 42. Section 8 of the Act of July 30th,
30th, 1842, 5 U. S. Stat, at Large, 564, 1846, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 43),
8 17), and that no evidence could be construed, in reference to the impo-
given against it. Hertz v. Maxwell, sition of 20 per cent. penalty for the

137 undervaluation of imports. id,


32. Requisites of a protest against the 43. The authority to iropose such pen-
imposition of duties, stated.


alty is not limited to cases where an

entry has been made of the imports,
33. The discriminating duty of 10 per or where the importer, on entry, has

cent. imposed on merchandise import- added to the cost or value given by
ed in certain foreign vessels, by $ 11 the invoice.

of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5
U. S. Stat, at Large, 561), is not abol. 44. Section 1 of the Act of March 3d,
ished by the Act of July 30th, 1846, 1851, varies the provisions of section
(9 Id., 42). Stalker v. Maxwell, 138 8 of the Act of July 30th, 1846, only

80 far as concerns the period of time
34. Such discriminating duty continues, in reference to which the valuation of

« ZurückWeiter »