Sorchan v. Schell
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. Action to recover back customs duties. During 1858, and for some time prior thereto, Armand Lachaise, Victor Fauche, Marius A. Sorchan, and Julien L. Allien, constituted the firm of Lachaise, Fauche & Co., and in such firm name imported on February 10,1858, by the ship Admiral, from France into the port of New York, certain “mousseline delaines” composed wholly of worsted, or worsted with a satin stripe.
Read the full summary
At Law. Action to recover back customs duties. During 1858, and for some time prior thereto, Armand Lachaise, Victor Fauche, Marius A. Sorchan, and Julien L. Allien, constituted the firm of Lachaise, Fauche & Co., and in such firm name imported on February 10,1858, by the ship Admiral, from France into the port of New York, certain “mousseline delaines” composed wholly of worsted, or worsted with a satin stripe. Duty at the rate of 24 per centum ad valorem was exacted on these mousseline delaines by Augustus Schell, then collector of customs, under the provision for “delaines” contained in…
1Opinion of the Court
Lacombe J.,
(orally.) This is the reductio ad absurdum of the doctrine of prospective protests. To say that, because on some day in one year the collector is notified that the firm of Lachaise, Fauche & Co. object to paying tho duties assessed on a certain class of goods for specified reasons, that officer is chargeable with notice that when, on another day, two years later, the firm of Sorchan, Allien & Diggelmann enter similar goods, they are objecting on the same grounds, and mean to lake their claims into court, is preposterous. The collector is under no obligations to advise himself as to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Midvale Coal Co. v. Cardox Corp.Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas · 1948