United States v. Lutz

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

United States v. Lutz

26 F. Cas. 1023, 2 Blatchf. 383, 1852 U.S. App. LEXIS 367

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1852

StatusPublished

This text of 26 F. Cas. 1023 (United States v. Lutz) 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

United States v. Lutz, 26 F. Cas. 1023, 2 Blatchf. 383, 1852 U.S. App. LEXIS 367 (circtsdny 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

dvflied the motion for a new trial, and held:

1. That, as the apparatus was in the actual possession of the plaintiffs at the time of the sale, and was taken from their possession by the defendants, they were competent to maintain this action.

2. That the legal right of property in the apparatus was vested in the plaintiffs, subject only to a lien, in favor of the vendor, for the purchase money.

3. That, as the apparatus was the property of the plaintiffs and was imported for their use, it was not subject to an import duty, and that, consequently, the sale of it by the collector, for the non-payment of duties, was without warrant of law ánd was void.

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

THE COURT

dvflied the motion for a new trial, and held:

1. That, as the apparatus was in the actual possession of the plaintiffs at the time of the sale, and was taken from their possession by the defendants, they were competent to maintain this action.

2. That the legal right of property in the apparatus was vested in the plaintiffs, subject only to a lien, in favor of the vendor, for the purchase money.

3. That, as the apparatus was the property of the plaintiffs and was imported for their use, it was not subject to an import duty, and that, consequently, the sale of it by the collector, for the non-payment of duties, was without warrant of law ánd was void.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F. Cas. 1023, 2 Blatchf. 383, 1852 U.S. App. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lutz-circtsdny-1852.