Ullman v. Murphy
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
This was an action to recover back money claimed to have been erroneously exacted by [Thomas Murphy] the defendant, as collector of customs for the port of New York, for duties exceeding the true amount due upon certain goods imported by the plaintiff [Sigmund Ullman], The parties respectively agreed to and read a statement of facts, in which it appeared that the goods in question were imported by the Aleppo, and were entered for warehousing on the 21st of January, 1871;…
Read the full summary
This was an action to recover back money claimed to have been erroneously exacted by [Thomas Murphy] the defendant, as collector of customs for the port of New York, for duties exceeding the true amount due upon certain goods imported by the plaintiff [Sigmund Ullman], The parties respectively agreed to and read a statement of facts, in which it appeared that the goods in question were imported by the Aleppo, and were entered for warehousing on the 21st of January, 1871; that the amount of duties then claimed by the defendant thereon was liquidated on the 11th of February, 1871; and that, on…
1Opinion of the Court
WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge,
at the close of the argument, stated his opinion, in substance, as follows:. The act of congress of February 20th, 1845 (0 Stat. 727), provided, that no action should be maintained against any collector, to recover the amount of duties paid under protest, unless such protest was made in writing, and signed by the claimant, “at or before the payment of said duties.” It appears by the ease of Brune v. Marriott [Case No. 2,052], that Chief Justice Taney held that language sufficiently broad to justify him in sustaining an action brought by Bruñe to recover for duties paid…
2Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. CampbellDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1882
- United States v. McCoyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- Haynes v. BrewsterDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 1891