United States v. Bevan
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
This was a suit founded on an alleged mistake of the officers of the custom-house at Philadelphia. It appeared that the defendants [Mathew L. Bevan and1 May Humphries, trading under the firm of Bevan & Humph-ries] had acted as agents of Deforest and Sons, of New York, in passing certain packages of wool through the custom-house at Philadelphia, in March, 1836; that the revenue officers had reported the wool to be free of duty, under the second section of the act of July 14,…
Read the full summary
This was a suit founded on an alleged mistake of the officers of the custom-house at Philadelphia. It appeared that the defendants [Mathew L. Bevan and1 May Humphries, trading under the firm of Bevan & Humph-ries] had acted as agents of Deforest and Sons, of New York, in passing certain packages of wool through the custom-house at Philadelphia, in March, 1836; that the revenue officers had reported the wool to be free of duty, under the second section of the act of July 14, 1832 (4 Story’s Laws, 2318 [4 Stat. 583]) and that it had thereupon been, delivered to the defendants, who at once…
1Opinion of the CourtHopkinson, District Judge
(charging jury). Several questions of law and fact have been discussed in this case. The view I have of the preliminary question raised for the defence will render an examination of the other points unnecessary. The question is this: Supposing the weight of this wool to have been such as is alleged by the plaintiffs. and, of course, that its value was greater than eight cents a pound, thereby render*1138ing it liable to duty; and granting also, that the duty might now be received from the importers, notwithstanding the action of the officers of the custom-house, declaring the goods to be free, and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Baldwin v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1902