White v. United States

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

White v. United States

154 F. 175, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2423

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1896

DocketNo. 1,067

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 F. 175 (White v. United States) 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

White v. United States, 154 F. 175, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2423 (circtsdny 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

The question raised by the protest and appeal' in this case is whether the component material of chief value in this importation is flax or hemp under paragraph 371, or jute, under paragraph 374, of the tarifí act of Oct. 1, 1890, c. 1244, § 1, Schedule J, 26 Stat. 593, 594. If ex parte affidavits of the manufacturers not used before the Appraisers might be considered here, it might be found to be jute; otherwise not. While section 11 of the customs administrative act of 1890 (Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 136 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1924]) requires appraisers to “use all available means to ascertain” the dutiable value, section 15 prescribes that the evidence taken by the appraisers and their finding, with such “further evidence” as may be taken by referee under the direction of the Circuit Court, shall constitute the record on appeal to that court. There is no provision for any relaxation of the ordinary rules of evidence in taking proofs, for use in court or anywhere, by the Appraisers.

Judgment affirmed.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

The question raised by the protest and appeal' in this case is whether the component material of chief value in this importation is flax or hemp under paragraph 371, or jute, under paragraph 374, of the tarifí act of Oct. 1, 1890, c. 1244, § 1, Schedule J, 26 Stat. 593, 594. If ex parte affidavits of the manufacturers not used before the Appraisers might be considered here, it might be found to be jute; otherwise not. While section 11 of the customs administrative act of 1890 (Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 136 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1924]) requires appraisers to “use all available means to ascertain” the dutiable value, section 15 prescribes that the evidence taken by the appraisers and their finding, with such “further evidence” as may be taken by referee under the direction of the Circuit Court, shall constitute the record on appeal to that court. There is no provision for any relaxation of the ordinary rules of evidence in taking proofs, for use in court or anywhere, by the Appraisers.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 F. 175, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-united-states-circtsdny-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack