Wilkinson v. Greely
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs [Arthur Wilkinson and others]. who are merchants in the city of Boston, against the defendant [Philip Greely, Jr.], the collector of that port, to recover back a sum of money paid to him, under protest, for duties on certain merchandise imported by the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs [Arthur Wilkinson and others]. who are merchants in the city of Boston, against the defendant [Philip Greely, Jr.], the collector of that port, to recover back a sum of money paid to him, under protest, for duties on certain merchandise imported by the plaintiffs. It appeared, at the trial, that in August, 1S49, there arrived in Boston, by two ships, two parcels of merchandise. consigned to the plaintiffs, and invoiced as being blankets; that the defendant refused to allow them to be entered and passed as blankets, paying a duty of 20…
1Opinion of the Court
CURTIS, Circuit Justice.
I hold it to be my duty not to interfere with the verdict of a jury, as being against the evidence, unless I can clearly see that the jury must have unconsciously fallen into some mistake, or been actuated by some improper motive in rendering the verdict. Alsop v. Commercial Ins. Co. [Case No. 262]; Fearing v. De Wolf [Id. 4,711]; Hepburn v. Dubois, 12 Pet. [37 U. S.] 376. On examining the evidence introduced by the defendant, on whom was the burden of proof, to show that these articles were not known in commerce as blankets, at the time of the passage of the tariff…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Arthur v. UnkartSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Henning v. Western Union Tel. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1890