Grandmange v. Schell
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
This was an action to recover excess of duties on importations of mom-selines de laine. It was conceded that the amounts paid on all the 83 separate importations were excessive, but defendant claimed that plaintiff had failed to show that he paid the excessive duties, to get possession of his goods, or that he protested at the time, and in the form-required by the act of February 26, 1845, (5 St. 727.)
1Opinion of the Court
Lacombe, J.,
(orally.) The motion of the defendant to direct a verdict as to Exhibit No. 47, (or rather as to one case by No. 47,) whore there is no proof of the authority to sign the claimant’s name to the protest, is granted. The statute requires the protest to be signed by the claimant. It may, of course, be signed by a properly authorized agent of the claimant, but there is nothing here to prove either the Handwriting or the authority of the individual who wrote the firm.name to this protest, and added his initials to the signature. Nor is there anything in the contention that the protest…
2Cited by4 opinions
- William R. Thropp & Sons Co. v. De Laski & Thropp Circular Woven Tire Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1915
- Allison v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
- Wells v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
- Lloyd v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941