United States v. Twenty-Eight Packages of Pins
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
On the 17th December, 1831, an information was filed by the attorney of the United States, against twenty-eight. packages of pins imported in the ship Monongahela, from Liverpool, which were alleged to be forfeited, on the ground, that “the invoice thereof was made up with intent to evade and defraud the revenue,” contrary to the provisions of the act of congress of May 28, 1830, relative to goods subject to ad valorem duty. Pamph.
Read the full summary
On the 17th December, 1831, an information was filed by the attorney of the United States, against twenty-eight. packages of pins imported in the ship Monongahela, from Liverpool, which were alleged to be forfeited, on the ground, that “the invoice thereof was made up with intent to evade and defraud the revenue,” contrary to the provisions of the act of congress of May 28, 1830, relative to goods subject to ad valorem duty. Pamph. Laws 1830, p. 105. On the 17th January, 1832, William C. Cardwell and John Potter, for and on behalf of Kirby, Beard and Kirby, of London, filed a claim to the…
1Opinion of the Court
HOPKINSON, District Judge.
The question to be decided in this case is one of entire novelty, and considerable importance. It arises on the construction of the fifteenth section of the act of congress of September 24, 1789, “to establish the judicial courts of the United States.” Neither the counsel at the bar, nor the inquiries I have made since the argument, have been able to discover any judicial decision or practice, which affords us any aid in determining the question.
The case is this. An informaton has been filed against certain pins and needles, imported into the United States from…
2Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- United States v. One TrunkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1909
- United States v. A Lot of Silk Goods & Other MerchandiseDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1912
- United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985