Harry Bierschenk Co. v. Goess

S.D. New York

Harry Bierschenk Co. v. Goess

12 F. Supp. 295, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1070

DecidedMarch 6, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. Supp. 295 (Harry Bierschenk Co. v. Goess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harry Bierschenk Co. v. Goess, 12 F. Supp. 295, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1070 (S.D.N.Y. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

KNOX, District Judge.

This motion is denied. In my opinion, complainant is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights either of the Collector of Customs, or of the United States, by reason of anything contained in section 198 of title 19 of the U. S. Code Annotated. The [296]*296provisions of the statute were designed to protect the United States, and are not intended to favor persons who seek to take advantage of the conveniences contemplated by the act. The obligation of importers for the ultimate payment of duties was Expressly retained, and complainant is in no worse position than any other depositor of,the bank; and is no worse off than if he had been permitted to give the collector an uncertified check which had been dishonored by the bank. I see no reason why complainant should secure a preference over other depositors. It would have been inequitable for the collector to have pursued any course of procedure that would place complainant in a favored position.

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

KNOX, District Judge.

This motion is denied. In my opinion, complainant is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights either of the Collector of Customs, or of the United States, by reason of anything contained in section 198 of title 19 of the U. S. Code Annotated. The [296]*296provisions of the statute were designed to protect the United States, and are not intended to favor persons who seek to take advantage of the conveniences contemplated by the act. The obligation of importers for the ultimate payment of duties was Expressly retained, and complainant is in no worse position than any other depositor of,the bank; and is no worse off than if he had been permitted to give the collector an uncertified check which had been dishonored by the bank. I see no reason why complainant should secure a preference over other depositors. It would have been inequitable for the collector to have pursued any course of procedure that would place complainant in a favored position.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. Supp. 295, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-bierschenk-co-v-goess-nysd-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack