United States v. Wilson

Citation42 L.Ed. 464,168 U.S. 273,18 S.Ct. 85
Decision Date29 November 1897
Docket NumberNo. 296,296
PartiesUNITED STATES v. WILSON
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

The Attorney General, for the United States.

John S. Mosby, for appellee.

Mr. Justice PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the court.

The court of claims in this case gave judgment in favor of the appellee upon these facts: Thomas B. Van Buren, a citizen of the United States, was appointed consul general of the United States at the port of Yokohama, Japan, and held office from June, 1874, until June, 1885. While at Yokohama, Mr. Van Buren received fees for certifying invoices of merchandise shipped from that port through the United States in bond to foreign countries, amounting to the sum of $4,115, which fees were paid into the treasury of the United States, under the rules, regulations, and requirements of the departments of state and treasury, requiring fees to be so accounted for and paid to the United States. There were 1,646 of these invoices. Of the merchandise so shipped, that covered by 523 of the invoices was stopped in transit, for consumption in the United States, without further consular certificates, and the declarations or invoices and certificates made by the consul were accepted by the customs officers of the United States as sufficient. The fees collected for certifying these 523 invoices amounted to $1,307.50. The merchandise described in 478 of the 1,646 invoices passed in transit through the United States to foreign countries, and was exported from the United States. The fees collected for certifying these invoices amounted to $1,195. With regard to 645 of the 1,646 invoices, there was no evidence either that the merchandise described in the invoices was stopped in transit, and entered for consumption in the United States, or that it passed in transit through the United States to foreign countries. The fees collected for certifying these invoices amounted to $1,612.50. Mr. Van Buren's accounts for the total of all these among other fees were settled at the treasury department, and in the settlements he was charged with these as for official fees.

The court of claims found that it was not shown that the reason for paying said fees into the treasury was to avoid controversy with any department of the government, or that Mr. Van Buren made any demand to have the fees refunded to him, or credited to him, before said accounts were finally settled or that, before the final settlement of his accounts at the treasury department, he made any objection or protest against said fees being charged to him as official fees. The court gave the claimant judgment for the total of the three sums above mentioned, being $4,115.

The judgment in this case was mainly based by the court below upon the case of U. S. v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 10 Sup. Ct. 327; and it was there held that the invoices referred to in sections 2853 and 2855, Rev. St., either as they stood originally, or as they were amended by the act of June 10, 1880, did not include invoices for the shipment of merchandise in transit through the United States to other countries, and that the law did not require a consul to issue certificates in such cases; that no provision was made for a fee for them in the regulations of 1874 or those of 1881; and that it did not appear that the regulations of the treasury department required a consul to perform any duty in relation to such goods. The claim of the claimant in regard to such fees was allowed as a proper claim against the government.

It is stated in the brief of counsel for the government therein that in the Mosby Case neither the court of claims nor this court was given the benefit of any information as to what transit invoices were, and it is now said that both the courts were mistaken in holding that the invoices in the Mosby Case were not those referred to in the above-numbered sections of the Revised Statutes; and it is said that it now appears by the evidence before the court that such invoices are the identical invoices described by those sections, and that section 2860, in providing that 'no merchandise imported from any foreign place or country shall be admitted to an entry unless the invoice presented in all respects conforms to the requirements of sections 2853, 2854 and 2855, and has thereon the certificate of a consul, vice consul or commercial agent in those sections specified,' makes it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • US v. Evans
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 10, 1987
    ... 667 F. Supp. 974 . UNITED STATES of America . v. . Samuel EVANS; Guriel Eisenberg; Rafael Israel Eisenberg; William Northrup; ......
  • Republic of Philippines v. Marcos, s. 86-6091
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 24, 1987
    ...can get away with. A court of law in this country simply cannot second-guess how that power is exercised. See Underhill, 168 U.S. at 254, 18 S.Ct. at 85. Plaintiff is in no better position if it seeks to challenge Mr. Marcos' invocation of martial law and assumption of dictatorial power. Ag......
  • In re Refined Petroleum Products Antitrust Litig., Civil Action No. H:07-MDL-01886.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • January 9, 2009
    ......H:07-CV-04415. . Civil Action No. H:08-CV-00241. . Civil Action No. H:08-CV-02745. . United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. . January 9, 2009. . Page 573 . COPYRIGHT ......
  • Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 82 C 3133.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • January 26, 1983
    ......Lois FROLOVA, Plaintiff,. v. UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, Defendant. No. 82 C 3133. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. January 26, 1983.558 F. Supp. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT