United States v. Perkins

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

United States v. Perkins

119 F. 384, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5276

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

DecidedNovember 11, 1902

DocketNo. 3,213

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 F. 384 (United States v. Perkins) 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. Perkins, 119 F. 384, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5276 (circtsdny 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

On July 24, 1897, before 4 o’clock in the afternoon, certain goods arrived on the steamship Latouraine, consigned to the appellees herein. They tendered a consumption entry of the goods before 4 o’clock p. m., but such tender was refused by the collector, and on the following Monday, July 26, 1897, they made a warehouse entry of the goods. The question raised is the same as that raised in the case of U. S. v. Legg, 45 C. C. A. 134, 105 Fed. 930, namely, whether the goods are dutiable under the tariff act of 1894 or of 1897 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1626]. The only distinction between that case and the case at bar is that in the Legg Case the importer renewed his tender of the consumption entry on July 26th, while in this case, in order to avoid the payment of extra duty, the appellees made a warehouse entry of the goods on the 26th. In U. S. v. Legg it was held that whatever rights the importer had prior to 4 o’clock on July 24, 1897, vested at that time. It does not appear herein that the importers waived such rights by presentation of a warehouse entry and bond.

I think this case cléarly falls within the reasoning in the Legg Case, and the decision of the board of appraisers is therefore affirmed.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

On July 24, 1897, before 4 o’clock in the afternoon, certain goods arrived on the steamship Latouraine, consigned to the appellees herein. They tendered a consumption entry of the goods before 4 o’clock p. m., but such tender was refused by the collector, and on the following Monday, July 26, 1897, they made a warehouse entry of the goods. The question raised is the same as that raised in the case of U. S. v. Legg, 45 C. C. A. 134, 105 Fed. 930, namely, whether the goods are dutiable under the tariff act of 1894 or of 1897 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1626]. The only distinction between that case and the case at bar is that in the Legg Case the importer renewed his tender of the consumption entry on July 26th, while in this case, in order to avoid the payment of extra duty, the appellees made a warehouse entry of the goods on the 26th. In U. S. v. Legg it was held that whatever rights the importer had prior to 4 o’clock on July 24, 1897, vested at that time. It does not appear herein that the importers waived such rights by presentation of a warehouse entry and bond.

I think this case cléarly falls within the reasoning in the Legg Case, and the decision of the board of appraisers is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F. 384, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-perkins-circtsdny-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack