Legal Opinion

Harts v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 16, 1905No. Nos. 1,185, 1,186PublishedCited by 2 opinions

In Error to and Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.

1Opinion of the Court

HAWLEY, District Judge.

These cases were consolidated and tried together. No. 1,185 is an action at law to recover a penalty of $1,971.12 by reason of an alleged violation by the plaintiff in error of section 2802, Rev. St. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1873]. The court found the value of the. merchandise to be $552, and entered judgment for three times the value thereof, viz., $1,656. No. 1,186 is a libel in admiralty'to forfeit the dutiable articles which appellant did not, at the time of making entry, mention to the collector, as required by said section. Section 2802 reads as follows:

“Whenever…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. One Pearl Chain v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903
  2. United States v. One Pearl NecklaceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1901
  3. Dodge v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1904
  4. United States v. One Pearl NecklaceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1900

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. One TrunkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
  2. Hudson Shipping Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API