Ponsot v. Maxwell

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

Ponsot v. Maxwell

19 F. Cas. 986, 4 Blatchf. 43, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 638

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

DecidedApril 21, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. Cas. 986 (Ponsot 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

Ponsot v. Maxwell, 19 F. Cas. 986, 4 Blatchf. 43, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 638 (circtsdny 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, District Judge.

These protests were all made in pursuance of the act of February 20, 1845 (5 Stat. 727), which requires a person protesting against any exaction of alleged excessive or illegal duties, to make his protest in writing, and set forth “distinctly and specifically the grounds of objection to the payment thereof.” In this case, the protests were distinct and specific, and distinctly related to a specific article embraced in the invoices and entries to which the protests referred. “Rosewood furniture” is a well known and specific term, and these protests cannot be extended beyond what is properly and specifically embraced within them.

Most clearly, they cannot be extended so as to embrace any other article than rosewood furniture; and furniture of other woods, and silk and worsted goods, and varnish, are necessarily excluded from their operation. Furniture of rosewood and common wood together, or of rosewood and mahogany together, when the latter wood forms so large and so conspicuous a portion of the furniture as necessarily to require it to be classed, in commercial transactions, not as rosewood furniture but as rosewood and mahogany furniture, or rosewood and common wood furniture, must equally be. excluded from their operation. ’

As there is nothing from which I can determine the articles or amounts to which these protests, under these principles, can be made to apply, the plaintiffs must have judgment for the sum appearing, on these principles, to be due to them, to be ascertained by adjustment at the custom-house, or as the parties may otherwise agree.

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

HALL, District Judge.

These protests were all made in pursuance of the act of February 20, 1845 (5 Stat. 727), which requires a person protesting against any exaction of alleged excessive or illegal duties, to make his protest in writing, and set forth “distinctly and specifically the grounds of objection to the payment thereof.” In this case, the protests were distinct and specific, and distinctly related to a specific article embraced in the invoices and entries to which the protests referred. “Rosewood furniture” is a well known and specific term, and these protests cannot be extended beyond what is properly and specifically embraced within them.

Most clearly, they cannot be extended so as to embrace any other article than rosewood furniture; and furniture of other woods, and silk and worsted goods, and varnish, are necessarily excluded from their operation. Furniture of rosewood and common wood together, or of rosewood and mahogany together, when the latter wood forms so large and so conspicuous a portion of the furniture as necessarily to require it to be classed, in commercial transactions, not as rosewood furniture but as rosewood and mahogany furniture, or rosewood and common wood furniture, must equally be. excluded from their operation. ’

As there is nothing from which I can determine the articles or amounts to which these protests, under these principles, can be made to apply, the plaintiffs must have judgment for the sum appearing, on these principles, to be due to them, to be ascertained by adjustment at the custom-house, or as the parties may otherwise agree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. Cas. 986, 4 Blatchf. 43, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponsot-v-maxwell-circtsdny-1857.