About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Hugh Maxwell, Plaintiff in error, v. Nathaniel L. Griswold, George Griswold, George W. Gray, and George Griswold, Junior U.S. 242 (1851)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0251 and id is 1 raw text is: 242 SUPREME COURT. Maxwell v. Griswold et al. the increased duties on the highest appraisal, and the penalty, were paid to them. The judgment below is affirmed. Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the rec- ord f-om the Circuit Court of the United States for the Dis- trict of Massachusetts, and was argued by counsel. On con- sideratfon whereof, it is now here, ordered and adjudged by this court, that'the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs and damages at the rate of six per centum per annum. HUGH MAXWELL, PLAniTIrF IN ERROR, v. NATHANIEL L. GRISWOLD, GEORGE GRISWOLD, GEORGE W. GRAY, AND GEORGE GRISWOLD, JUNIOR. The points ruled in the preceding case of Greely v. Thompson and Forman adopted and applied to this case also, so far as they are applicable. Where the collector insisted upon either having the goods appraised at the value at the time of shipment, the consequence of which would have been an addition of so much to the invoice price as to subject the importer to a penalty; or to allow the importer voluntarily to make the addition to tha invoice price and so escape the penalty, and the importer chose the latter course, thi3 was not such a voluntary payment of duties on his part as to debar him from bringing an action against the collector for the recovery of the excess thus illegally exacted. THIs case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Like the preceding case of Greely v. Thompson and For- man, it was an action brought by the defendants in error against Maxwell, the collector at the port of New York, for the return of duties paid under protest In January, 1850, the defendants in error imported into New York, in the ship Matilda, from Manilla, sundry bags of sugar and bales of hemp. The goods were purchased in. March and April, 1849, but not shipped until about the 24th of July, 1849, wheri the market prices had risen very considerably. The as- sistant appraiser reported upon the value of the articles, mean- ing by the word value the actual market value at the time of shipment to the United States in the principal markets of the country of produce. The importers paid the duties under protests, one of which was the following.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most