Dieckerhoff v. Robertson
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. Motion to amend bill of particulars. The moving affidavit of the plaintiffs showed: (1) That two suits between the same parties were ponding,—one numbered 9,187, and the other 10,072. (2) The first suit was brought within 90 days after the decision of the secretary of the treasury on the appeal to him under section 2931, Rev. St. U. S. (3) The second suit was not commenced until more than a year had elapsed after the decision of the secretary of the treasury.
Read the full summary
At Law. Motion to amend bill of particulars. The moving affidavit of the plaintiffs showed: (1) That two suits between the same parties were ponding,—one numbered 9,187, and the other 10,072. (2) The first suit was brought within 90 days after the decision of the secretary of the treasury on the appeal to him under section 2931, Rev. St. U. S. (3) The second suit was not commenced until more than a year had elapsed after the decision of the secretary of the treasury. (4) The plaintiffs did not know, at the time of the commencement of the first suit, that any decision had been made by the…
1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.
Since the decision in Pott v. Arthur, 15 Blatchf. 314, this court has frequently exercised the power of permitting plaintiffs, in suits to recover duties illegally exacted by collectors of customs, to amend the hill of particulars as to essential contents, notwithstanding the mandatory language of section 3012, Rev. St. U. S., which enacts that the suit shall not be maintained unless the bill of particulars containing the matters specified be served within 30 days after due notice of the appearance of the defendant. In that case Judge Blatchfobd construed the statute as directory merely, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- The HarmonyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1812
- Tott v. ArthurU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1878