United States v. Six Hundred Tons of Iron Ore

17 F. 137
CourtUnited States Circuit Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1882
StatusPublished

This text of 17 F. 137 (United States v. Six Hundred Tons of Iron Ore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Six Hundred Tons of Iron Ore, 17 F. 137 (uscirct 1882).

Opinion

Nixon, J.

Six hundred tons of iron ore, imported into this country from Spain by the steam-ship Italia, have been forfeited for under[138]*138valuation. Since the forfeiture, Thomas Henderson and others, owners of the steamer, have presented a petition to me, pursuant to the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the act of June 22, 1874 praying for an allowance of freight from the proceeds of the sale, and one Joseph Wells has also petitioned to be reimbursed for certain advances of money made by him on the purchase of the property without knowledge of the violations of the revenue laws by the importer.

Under the provisions of the eighteenth section I directed the summary investigation, provided for by the act, to be made by William Muirheid, Esq., one of the United States commissioners for the district, ordering him to state and annex to the petition the facts appearing from the evidence, together with a certified copy of the evidence, in order that the same might be transmitted to the honorable secretary of the treasury for adjudication.

The commissioner has made his report, finding the facts which he was ordered to do, and also finding the law, which was not within the reference. The counsel for the'petitioners, Henderson and oth-' ers, have filed exceptions to the report of the commissioner, and asking that numerous changes should be made by the judge.

I think the fair construction of the act is that these exceptions should go with the report to the secretary of the treasury, and should be considered by him in making up his judgment in the case. I have accordingly declined to pass upon them. I should direct all expressions of opinion by the commissioner, as to the law of the case, to be stricken from the report, as not coming within the reference, if I supposed they would tend to prejudice the judgment of the secretary of the treasury.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 F. 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-six-hundred-tons-of-iron-ore-uscirct-1882.