United States v. One Package of Merchandise

Supreme Court

United States v. One Package of Merchandise

58 U.S. 98, 15 L. Ed. 58, 17 How. 98, 1854 U.S. LEXIS 498

DecidedJanuary 18, 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 58 U.S. 98 (United States v. One Package of Merchandise) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. One Package of Merchandise, 58 U.S. 98, 15 L. Ed. 58, 17 How. 98, 1854 U.S. LEXIS 498 (1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. .Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The libel of information was filed, in this ease, in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, for the condemnation and forfeiture of one package of goods ;• the entry, as charged, having been made upon an invoice in which the goods were invoiced under their actual cost value at the place of exportation, with a design to defraud the duties. After the evidence was heard, the jury, under the instructions, found a verdict for the plaintiffs.

The court afterwards arrested the judgment for the plaintiffs, and directed a judgment for the claimants, on the ground that the 66th section of the act of 1799 had been repealed; which judgment was affirmed, on error, by the circuit court.

For the reason given in the case of the United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment below must be reversed, and the record remitted to the court for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion of this court.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL dissented.

Order.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the. United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered ■ and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court in this caiise be and the same is hereby reversed, and that this, cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity to the opinion of this court.

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

Mr. .Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The libel of information was filed, in this ease, in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, for the condemnation and forfeiture of one package of goods ;• the entry, as charged, having been made upon an invoice in which the goods were invoiced under their actual cost value at the place of exportation, with a design to defraud the duties. After the evidence was heard, the jury, under the instructions, found a verdict for the plaintiffs.

The court afterwards arrested the judgment for the plaintiffs, and directed a judgment for the claimants, on the ground that the 66th section of the act of 1799 had been repealed; which judgment was affirmed, on error, by the circuit court.

For the reason given in the case of the United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment below must be reversed, and the record remitted to the court for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion of this court.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL dissented.

Order.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the. United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered ■ and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court in this caiise be and the same is hereby reversed, and that this, cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity to the opinion of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 U.S. 98, 15 L. Ed. 58, 17 How. 98, 1854 U.S. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-one-package-of-merchandise-scotus-1855.