Gray v. Lawrence

10 F. Cas. 1031, 3 Blatchf. 117
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided December 15, 1853·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

THE COURT

held: 1. That, under the usage proved, the sum to which an invoice was reduced by the rebatement, and not its gross sum, must be regarded as representing the real invoice price;

2. That the secretary of the treasury had no legal power to direct the judgment of the appraisers in valuing goods, or in adding to or subtracting from the charges in the invoices, for the purpose of determining market values; and that the increase of the invoices 5 per cent, in amount, in the manner in which it was done, was without authority of law;

3. That an entry or protest made by an agent is, in láw, made by the principal, and that the act of 1845 did not necessarily impugn that general principle. Mason v. Kane [Case No. 9,241].

Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of duties charged upon the 5 per cent, so added to the invoice, with interest from the time of payment.

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

Gray v. Lawrence, 10 F. Cas. 1031, 3 Blatchf. 117 (circtsdny 1853).

10 F. Cas. 1031 (Gray v. Lawrence) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mohawk Recreation Products, Inc. v. United States
77 Cust. Ct. 180 (U.S. Customs Court, 1976)
Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. v. United States
400 F. Supp. 813 (U.S. Customs Court, 1975)
Baylis Bros. v. United States
75 Cust. Ct. 89 (U.S. Customs Court, 1975)
United States v. Wedemann & Godknecht, Inc.
515 F.2d 1145 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1975)
United States v. Wedemlann & Godknecht, Inc.
515 F.2d 1145 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1975)
Bruhl Bros. v. Wilson
123 F. 957 (D. Rhode Island, 1903)
Herman v. Schell
18 F. 891 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1884)
Balfour v. Sullivan
17 F. 231 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1883)