Lehmaier v. Maxwell
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.
Opinion
HELD BY
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 F. Cas. 250, 1856 U.S. App. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehmaier-v-maxwell-circtsdny-1856.