Ames v. Hager
| Decision Date | 17 September 1888 |
| Citation | 36 F. 129 |
| Parties | AMES v. HAGER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Syllabus by the Court
Clause 4, Sec. 629, Rev. St., was not repealed by the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470,) or by the act of March 3, 1887, (24 St. 552,) defining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts and these courts have jurisdiction in suits arising under revenue laws, although the amount in dispute is less than $2,000.
A. P Van Duzer, for plaintiff.
J. T Carey, U.S. Atty., for defendant.
Before SAWYER, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit to recover from the collector of the port of San Francisco the sum of $375.75 drawback on grain-bags claimed to be illegally withheld. Defendant demurs on the ground that, the sum sought to be recovered being less than $2,000 the court has no jurisdiction under the act of March 3, 1887. In U.S. v. Huffmaster, 35 F. 81, (No. 3,704,) we held that under the act of March 3, 1875, the court had no jurisdiction over a suit to recover $250, the value of a quantity of wood illegally cut on the public lands. And in a similar suit, brought under the act of March 3, 1887, that there is no jurisdiction where the amount claimed is less than $2,000. U.S. v. Huffmaster, 35 F. 81, 83. We held that the first, second, and third clauses of section 629, Rev. St., were repealed by the subsequent acts of 1875 and 1887. The question now is, whether the fourth paragraph is also repealed-- this being a suit arising under the revenue laws, in regard to which there is no limitation in that clause. Although this clause speaks of 'suits at law or in equity, arising under any act providing for revenue from imports or tonnage, ' the supreme court has held that a suit of this character is not a common-law suit on a promise, but a suit under a statute. Arnson v Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 3 S.Ct. 184. It seems manifest that the acts of 1875 and 1887 cover the whole subject-matter of the first three clauses of section 629, Rev. St., but the intention as to the remainder of the section is not so clear. The subject-matter of the first three clauses is substantially the same as that of section 11 of the act of 1789, and embraces the general jurisdiction of the court. That of the fourth claim is covered by, and taken from, the act of 1833, (4 St. 632,) and the subsequent clauses from various other statutes conferring special jurisdiction. Before the consolidation in the Revised Statutes all these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization
...Sess., p. 15; Sen. Rep. No. 388, Part 1, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 11. Cf. Miller-Magee Co. v. Carpenter, C.C., 34 F. 433; Ames v. Hager, C.C., 36 F. 129, 1 L.R.A. 377. ...
-
Swindell v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
......433, 434,. opinion by Circuit Judge, later Mr. Justice, Jackson,. approved in Re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 653, 662, 14. Sup.Ct. 221, 37 L.Ed. 1211; Ames v. Hager (C.C.) 36. F. 129, 130; Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Great Northern. Ry. Co., 88 F. 258, 260, 31 C.C.A. 525 (C.C.A. 2d Cir.);. Lewis ......
-
East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Atlanta & F. R. Co.
...as they prescribed the appropriate district in which the suit might be brought, were embodied in section 739 of the Revised Statues. Ames v. Hager, 36 F. 129; U.S.V. Moony, U.S. 104, 6 S.Ct. 304. That act contained no provision covering the special cases provided for in the act of May 4, 18......
-
Johnson v. Wells, Fargo & Co.
...as follows: * * * Fourth. Of all suits at law or in equity arising under any act providing for revenue. * * * ' It was held in Ames v. Hager, 36 F. 129, that this of section 629 of the Revised Statutes was not repealed by the act of March 3, 1875, or by the act of March 3, 1887; and, being ......