Evans v. Collector of Customs of Port of San Francisco

Ninth Circuit

Evans v. Collector of Customs of Port of San Francisco

107 F. 110, 46 C.C.A. 170, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3683

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 1901

DocketNo. 626

StatusPublished

This text of 107 F. 110 (Evans v. Collector of Customs of Port of San Francisco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evans v. Collector of Customs of Port of San Francisco, 107 F. 110, 46 C.C.A. 170, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3683 (9th Cir. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWLEY, District Judge.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether a cargo of anthracite coal containing less than 92 per centum of fixed carbon is subject to duty under the provisions of paragraph 415 of the tariff act of 1897, or whether it should be admitted free of duty under the provisions of paragraph 523 of said act. In Coles v. Collector, 40 C. C. A. 478, 100 Fed. 442, this identical question was presented to this court. It was ably argued, and received a careful and deliberate consideration. Our conclusion was that the coal in question was subject to duty, and not entitled to be admitted free. Thereafter appellant petitioned this court for a rehearing, based principally upon the ground that, in the judgment of the petitioner, the reasons given and conclusions reached by the supreme court in Chew Hing Lung v. Wise, 176 U. S. 156, 20 Sup. Ct. 320, 44 L. Ed. 412, were adverse to the views expressed by this court in the Coles Case. That decision was carefully examined, with the result that, in our opinion, it did not sustain the contention of appellant’s counsel, and was not in opposition to the conclusion reached by this court in the Coles Case. The petition for rehearing was therefore denied. Appellant then petitioned the supreme court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of this court. In this application the attention of that court was called to the decision in Chew Hing Lung v. Wise, and it was claimed by petitioner that the opinion of this court was not in accord with the views therein expressed. The petition for the writ of certiorari was denied. 177 U. S. 695, 20 Sup. Ct. 1029, 44 L. Ed. 946. In the light of these facts, we respectfully decline to reconsider the same identical question, conscious of the fact that a rediscussion would result in the same conclusion arrived at by this court in the Coles Case. We adhere to the views therein expressed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HAWLEY, District Judge.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether a cargo of anthracite coal containing less than 92 per centum of fixed carbon is subject to duty under the provisions of paragraph 415 of the tariff act of 1897, or whether it should be admitted free of duty under the provisions of paragraph 523 of said act. In Coles v. Collector, 40 C. C. A. 478, 100 Fed. 442, this identical question was presented to this court. It was ably argued, and received a careful and deliberate consideration. Our conclusion was that the coal in question was subject to duty, and not entitled to be admitted free. Thereafter appellant petitioned this court for a rehearing, based principally upon the ground that, in the judgment of the petitioner, the reasons given and conclusions reached by the supreme court in Chew Hing Lung v. Wise, 176 U. S. 156, 20 Sup. Ct. 320, 44 L. Ed. 412, were adverse to the views expressed by this court in the Coles Case. That decision was carefully examined, with the result that, in our opinion, it did not sustain the contention of appellant’s counsel, and was not in opposition to the conclusion reached by this court in the Coles Case. The petition for rehearing was therefore denied. Appellant then petitioned the supreme court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of this court. In this application the attention of that court was called to the decision in Chew Hing Lung v. Wise, and it was claimed by petitioner that the opinion of this court was not in accord with the views therein expressed. The petition for the writ of certiorari was denied. 177 U. S. 695, 20 Sup. Ct. 1029, 44 L. Ed. 946. In the light of these facts, we respectfully decline to reconsider the same identical question, conscious of the fact that a rediscussion would result in the same conclusion arrived at by this court in the Coles Case. We adhere to the views therein expressed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 F. 110, 46 C.C.A. 170, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-collector-of-customs-of-port-of-san-francisco-ca9-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack