Smith v. Schell
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
During August and September, 1857, one Henry Hooman imported; from Dundee and Glasgow, in Scotland, into the port of Nett York, certain carpeting, and entered the same for warehouse as “hemp carpeting.” Subsequently, and while in warehouse, llooman transferred this carpeting to the firm of Haggerty & Co., the surviving partner of which is the plaintiff’s testator.
Read the full summary
During August and September, 1857, one Henry Hooman imported; from Dundee and Glasgow, in Scotland, into the port of Nett York, certain carpeting, and entered the same for warehouse as “hemp carpeting.” Subsequently, and while in warehouse, llooman transferred this carpeting to the firm of Haggerty & Co., the surviving partner of which is the plaintiff’s testator. The defendant’s testator, the late Augustus Schell, classified this carpeting as “jute carpeting,” dutiable at 24 per centum ad valorem, under the provision for “carpets, carpeting, hearth-rugs, bedsides, and other portions of…
1Opinion of the Court
Coxe, J.,
(orally.) There is no escape from the conclusion that this protest is insufficient. The statute provides that a person who feels himself aggrieved must, by his protest, point out clearly and specifically the, grounds of his objection. The importer of the carpeting in suit protests against paying the duties charged by the collector, insisting that under the tariff act of 1857 his importations aro only subject to a duty of 15 per cent, ad valorem. This is simply referring the collector to the tariff act of 1857. The protest does not point out to the section or the clause upon which the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Shell Oil Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
- United States v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- United States v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917