Legal Opinion

United States v. Fifty Waltham Watch Movements

District Court, N.D. New York

Decided June 6, 1905PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Action for Forfeiture of Merchandise Seized as Illegally Imported. Note Six Parcels of Placer Gold v. U. S. (Ariz.) 76 Pac. 473. This is an action or proceeding under the provisions of section 3082 of the Revised Statutes of the United States [U. S. Comp.

Read the full summary

Action for Forfeiture of Merchandise Seized as Illegally Imported. Note Six Parcels of Placer Gold v. U. S. (Ariz.) 76 Pac. 473. This is an action or proceeding under the provisions of section 3082 of the Revised Statutes of the United States [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2014] to condemn 50 Waltham watch movements, manufactured at Waltham, Mass., exported to the Dominion of Canada, there purchased by one J. H. Racieott, the claimant herein, and by him sent by team across the border into the United States for sale and use in the United States without passing through the customhouse, or complying…

1Opinion of the Court

BAY, District Judge.

Section 3082 of the Revised Statutes of the United States reads as follows:

“If any person shall fraudulently or knowingly import or bring into the United States, or assist in so doing, any merchandise, contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise after importation, knowing' the same to have been imported contrary to law, such merchandise shall be forfeited and the offender shall be fined in any sum not exceeding five thousand dollars nor less than fifty dollars, or be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. KirbySupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. United States v. CarllSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  3. Hyde v. ShineSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  4. Dodge v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1904
  5. United States v. ClaypoolDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1882

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. International Ry. Co. v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
  2. United States v. Twenty-Five PicturesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1919
  3. Simon's Rice Mill v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API