Pousot v. Lawrence

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

Pousot v. Lawrence

19 F. Cas. 1209, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 640

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

DecidedApril 28, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. Cas. 1209 (Pousot v. Lawrence) 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

Pousot v. Lawrence, 19 F. Cas. 1209, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 640 (circtsdny 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Before

HALL, District Judge.

The only question was as to the sufficiency of the protests. There were five entries of goods. The first one embraced “rosewood and mahogany furniture, common wood furniture, rosewood furniture, and silk and worsted goods.” The protest annexed is “against paying” 40 per cent duty on rosewood furniture, as specified in his entry, believing it should pay 80 per cent, as cabinet furniture. Tbe other entries and protests are similar.

HELD BY THE COURT: That these protests related to a specific article embraced in the entries. “Rosewood furniture” is a well-known and specific tern, and tbe protests [1210]*1210cannot be extended beyond -what is properly and specifically embraced within them. Furniture of other woods, silk and worsted goods, and furniture of rosewood and common wood together, or rosewood and mahogany together, must be excluded from their operation.

Judgment for plaintiff, for the sum appearing to be due on these principles; the amount to be ascertained by adjustment at the customhouse, or as the parties may otherwise prefer.

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

Before

HALL, District Judge.

The only question was as to the sufficiency of the protests. There were five entries of goods. The first one embraced “rosewood and mahogany furniture, common wood furniture, rosewood furniture, and silk and worsted goods.” The protest annexed is “against paying” 40 per cent duty on rosewood furniture, as specified in his entry, believing it should pay 80 per cent, as cabinet furniture. Tbe other entries and protests are similar.

HELD BY THE COURT: That these protests related to a specific article embraced in the entries. “Rosewood furniture” is a well-known and specific tern, and tbe protests [1210]*1210cannot be extended beyond -what is properly and specifically embraced within them. Furniture of other woods, silk and worsted goods, and furniture of rosewood and common wood together, or rosewood and mahogany together, must be excluded from their operation.

Judgment for plaintiff, for the sum appearing to be due on these principles; the amount to be ascertained by adjustment at the customhouse, or as the parties may otherwise prefer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. Cas. 1209, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pousot-v-lawrence-circtsdny-1857.