In re Dieckerhoff

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

In re Dieckerhoff

45 F. 235, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1734

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided February 2, 1891·Published

Opinion

Lacombe, Circuit Judge.

There is nothing in the return to show what these goods are. The only fact certified by the hoard of appraisers is that “silk is the component material of chief value.” Both the counsel for Ihe importer and district attorney move to send the return back to the hoard for a further statement, insisting that there are not sufficient facts found to enable either side to present its view of the case. This seems to ho so. Had the hoard also certified that the articles were correctly described in the invoice or entry, or in the appraisers’ return, there might bo sufficient, but, as it is, there is nothing to show what the articles really are. Motion granted.

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

Lacombe, Circuit Judge.

There is nothing in the return to show what these goods are. The only fact certified by the hoard of appraisers is that “silk is the component material of chief value.” Both the counsel for Ihe importer and district attorney move to send the return back to the hoard for a further statement, insisting that there are not sufficient facts found to enable either side to present its view of the case. This seems to ho so. Had the hoard also certified that the articles were correctly described in the invoice or entry, or in the appraisers’ return, there might bo sufficient, but, as it is, there is nothing to show what the articles really are. Motion granted.

In re Dieckerhoff, 45 F. 235, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1734 (circtsdny 1891).

Pincite

45 F. 235 (In re Dieckerhoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.