United States v. May
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Debt on a bond for duties. Plea, tender of amount of duties. Replication, that the sum tendered was less than the duties due, and issue thereon. Upon the trial it appeared that the defendant [Samuel May] was a hardware merchant in Boston, and the goods in question were sent to him, by his agent in England, by his order.
Read the full summary
Debt on a bond for duties. Plea, tender of amount of duties. Replication, that the sum tendered was less than the duties due, and issue thereon. Upon the trial it appeared that the defendant [Samuel May] was a hardware merchant in Boston, and the goods in question were sent to him, by his agent in England, by his order. The invoice, which was of articles of hardware, and the account current, debited the goods, as bought of the agent, and contained a charge of commissions of five per cent. It was proved to be the invariable usage in the hardware trade, a usage, which had existed for more than…
1Opinion of the CourtStory, Circuit Justice
(charging jury). This is a mere question of fact for the jury. The act of the 20th of April, 1818, c. 74, § 4, directs, that the duties on ad valorem goods shall be estimated upon the actual cost, including all charges, except commissions, outside packages, and insurance. There is no dispute as to the meaning of the word “commissions,” nor is it susceptible of different meanings in the act. Whatever sum is bonfi fide charged and paid, as commissions, is excepted. A mere charge of commissions, where none is paid, or by the nature of the case could be paid, is not within the intent of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Bloomingdale Bros. & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
- Vandiver v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
- United States v. Alex Schechter Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1937