Howell v. Bidwell
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
This is a demurrer to the complaint of the plaintiffs, who sue to recover $15,931.48 paid as duties on a cargo of sugar cleared from Porto Rico March 10, 1899, and entered at the port of New York, United States of America, at a quarter past 11 o’clock in the forenoon of April 11, 1899, and $19,493-51 paid as duties on another cargo of sugar cleared from Porto Rico April 4, 1899, and entered at the port of New York April 21, 1899. It is alleged these duties were illegally…
Read the full summary
This is a demurrer to the complaint of the plaintiffs, who sue to recover $15,931.48 paid as duties on a cargo of sugar cleared from Porto Rico March 10, 1899, and entered at the port of New York, United States of America, at a quarter past 11 o’clock in the forenoon of April 11, 1899, and $19,493-51 paid as duties on another cargo of sugar cleared from Porto Rico April 4, 1899, and entered at the port of New York April 21, 1899. It is alleged these duties were illegally exacted by duress of goods, etc.
1Opinion of the Court
RAY, District Judge.
The demurrer is based on the grounds that as the sugars in question were cleared from Porto Rico while that island was still a foreign country, and subsequently actually entered at the port of New York, the importation commenced at the time when such cargoes cleared, and that the sugars were then charged with duty under the Dingley tariff act, although that act ceased to be operative on sugars imported after Porto Rico ceased to be a foreign country, and that as Porto Rico ceased to be a foreign country April II, 1899, and both cargoes were cleared at Porto Rico prior to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lapeyre v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- In re WelmanUnited States District Court · 1844
- United States v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- United States v. Stoddard, Haserick, Richards & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1898
- United States v. Stoddard, Haserick, Richards & Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.