Goldenberg v. Murphy
Supreme Court of the United States
IN EEEOE TO THE CIECUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Action to recover back duties alleged to have been illegally, exacted. The whole question was whether the suit was begun in time, it being conceded that the plaintiffs had a good cause of action if not barred by the statute. ■ The facts appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
This was a suit to recover back duties on imports paid under, protest, commenced in the- Superior Court of the City of New York, before the enactment of the Revised. Statutes, and the only question presented by the writ ©f error, is, whether the suit was “ brought within ninety days after the decision of' the Secretary,” as required by the act of June 30th, 1864,. c. 171, sec. 14, 13 Stat. 215, then in force. The facts are, that the decision was made by the Secretary on the 28th of May, 1872, and it was agreed at the trial that the ninety days* expired on •the 26th of August. A summons in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Arthur v. LaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
3Cited by39 opinions
- Harris v. GarnerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
- Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Rodney, U.S. District Judge (Two Cases). Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Rodney, U.S. District Judge (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2017
- United States ex rel. Wood v. Allergan, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2018
- Isaacks v. JeffersCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1944
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.