Lehmaier v. Maxwell

15 F. Cas. 250, 1856 U.S. App. LEXIS 561
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 F. Cas. 250 (Lehmaier v. Maxwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lehmaier v. Maxwell, 15 F. Cas. 250, 1856 U.S. App. LEXIS 561 (circtsdny 1856).

Opinion

HELD BY

THE COURT

(INGERSOLL, District Judge).

That in the first case it was sufficient that the reappraisers were sworn by a deputy collector, and that the penalty attaches whether the importer makes the addition to his invoice or not. That in the second case the plaintiffs gave no absolute unconditional notice of dissatisfaction to the collector, which they must do to entitle them to a reappraisal, but only announced that they would give evidence, if the collect- or desired it; and as he had no desire on the subject, their appeal was in effect aban[251]*251doned. [Bartlett v. Kane] 16 How. [57 U. S.] 263. But if the collector had refused to appoint a merchant appraiser, as claimed, still the appraisement was valid. It becomes of no effect only when there has been another appraisement; and the plaintiff’s remedy, if he had refused, would be by an action on the case against him for breach of duty. That neither of the protests, therefore, can avail the plaintiffs.

Verdict set aside, and judgment ordered for the defendant.

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

Related

Vitelli v. United States
7 Ct. Cust. 243 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 F. Cas. 250, 1856 U.S. App. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehmaier-v-maxwell-circtsdny-1856.