Bronson v. Schulten
Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
Citation | 104 U.S. 410,26 L.Ed. 797 |
Parties | BRONSON v. SCHULTEN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Samuel Shellabarger, Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson, and Mr. Almon W. Griswold, contra.
On the twenty-sixth day of January, 1877, the following order was made of record in the court below:——
'J. W. SCHULTEN ET AL.}
v.}
GREENE C. BRONSON and 22 other Causes.}
'A motion having come on to be heard before this court in the above-entitled causes to open the judgments therein:
'Now, on reading and filing notice of motion dated Dec. 27, 1876, and affidavits annexed of Almon W. Griswold and A. Heydenreich, on the part of the plaintiffs, and Almon W. Griswold having been heard for the motion on the part of the plaintiffs, and George Bliss, Esq., U. S. District Attorney, in opposition thereto, and due deliberation had, it is ordered that the judgments entered in the above-entitled causes upon the verdicts therein be vacated, and that the assessment of the plaintiffs' damages under the verdicts in said causes be referred to John I. Davenport, Esq., as sole referee.
'And it is further ordered that the referee proceed to adjust de novo the plaintiffs' damages under said verdicts in accordance therewith, and from the amounts found due, if any, he deduct the sums paid upon the judgment heretofore entered in each of said cases, respectively, and that he report the balanc , if any, found due the plaintiffs in each of said cases.
'The said referee shall give notice to the attorneys of the respective parties of the time and place of hearing therein, and either party may, on the hearing, raise objections, and said referee shall decide thereon, and either party may file exceptions to such decision of the referee within two days after the filing of the referee's report, and bring them to a hearing before the court upon four days' notice.
'Dated Jan. 26, 1877.'
March 8, 1877, another order was made that the action be continued in the name of Lucretia Bronson, executrix of the will of Greene C. Bronson, who had died in 1863. March 10, the referee's report was filed, in which it was found that there was due plaintiffs, in addition to what had been paid under the judgment set aside, the sum of $1,205.90, and on this sum interest was allowed to the amount of $2,017.21. For these sums, with added costs, a judgment was rendered in their favor. To reverse this judgment the present writ of error is brought.
Enough of the record of the original suit, the judgment in which is thus set aside, is produced before us to show that the action was against Bronson, as collector of customs for the port of New York, and the claim was for duties in excess of what was authorized by law on a large number of separate importations; that a verdict was given on the trial for plaintiffs for 'the amount, with interest, of the difference between duties levied and paid under protest, on commissions at two and one-half per cent, and such duties if levied on commissions at two per cent,' on the class of importations in question. The commissions alluded to were those paid by the importers before shipment to this country. As the amount to be recovered under this verdict was matter of computation and inspection of the custom-house papers, it was referred to Samuel Ogden to make report.
Neither the judgment of the court which was set aside, nor the report of Ogden, on which that judgment must have been entered, nor the plaintiffs' bill of particulars, on which the action was based, is found in the transcript of the record on which we are to consider this case. Nor is there any bill of exceptions, as there should have been, embodying the evidence on which the court acted in setting aside the former judgment. Nor is the date of that judgment to be ascertained from anything in this record, unless we can look at certain affidavits found in the transcript; for neither the notice of the motion to set is aside nor the order granting that motion mention the date of that judgment. It would seem that a party seeking to open or set aside a judgment seventeen years after it had been entered and the amount of it paid, in order that another judgment for a larger amount might be rendered in the same suit, was not very anxious to call attention to dates.
This imperfect state of the record has made us hesitate to enter upon a review of the case, but as the order setting aside the original judgment refers to the notice of motion and the annexed affidavits as the foundation of that order, and identifies those papers as they are found in the transcript, we are of opinion that they may be considered as part of the record, so far as the question of the authority of the court to make that order is involved.
Looking to these affidavits, in connection with what is more strictly a part of the record, it appears that the original suit was commenced in one of the State courts, Sept. 2, 1858, and afterwards removed into the Circuit Court of the United States, where plaintiffs filed a declaration containing the common counts. It appears that they also served a bill of particulars, setting out seventy-four entries of goods at the custom-house, on which they had been charged excessive duties by the defendant Bronson, which they had paid under protest. The affidavit of Murray, a refund clerk in the custom-house, states that in thirty-four of these entries the sums which should have been allowed plaintiffs were omitte in the adjustment. It was on this statement that the judgment rendered on the report of the first referee, Ogden, without objection or exception on either side, on the fifth day of August, 1860, was set aside, and a new reference made. This judgment, it appears, was also paid and accepted by plaintiffs in a few days, we may suppose, after it was rendered. The affidavit of plaintiffs' attorney, who attended to the original action, and on whose motion the original judgment was set aside, states that the adjustments were made by Ogden, who was an auditor at the custom-house, and by the collector of customs, and by the clerk of the court; that in 1864 he discovered that certain errors had been committed in fourteen other cases of a similar character, in which other persons were plaintiffs, to their prejudice, for which new actions were commenced, and held barred by the Statute of Limitations; that as to other cases, including the one now before us, he did not discover that items embraced in the bill of particulars had been omitted, until an investigation of certain recent cases of like character against Collector Redfield; that in the readjustment of these latter cases his attention was turned to the source of the errors in the one now in question. The affidavits of Heinrich and Murray tend to show that all was not included in the adjustment under the verdict that ought to have been.
We have thus a case in which plaintiffs sue for excessive charges on account of these commissions paid on seventy-four entries of goods, specifically set out in their bill of particulars. A verdict is rendered in their favor fixing the precise error under a which the exessive duty had been exacted, and leaving to a referee to ascertain the amount due on each of these entries. The referee reports as to all but thirty-four, nearly half, of these entries, and as to them makes no report. A judgment is rendered in conformity to the report, the money paid and accepted, and seventeen years afterwards the judgment is opened to correct the omission of these thirty-four entries.
We are of opinion that, if there was any mistake in the report of the referee and in the judgment rendered thereon, it was so...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois
... ... Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 67, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129 (1914); Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 415, 26 L.Ed. 797 (1882); Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 167, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874); Basset v. United States, 9 Wall ... ...
-
Lamb v. State
... ... No. 13,537 ... Writs ... of error coram nobis have been denied in civil cases where ... the error is in the judgment itself (Bronson v ... Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 26 L.Ed. 797); or in the record ... (Cramer v. Illinois Commercial Men's Ass'n, ... 103 N.E. 459, 260 Ill. 516; ... ...
-
Mutual Health & Benefit Ass'n v. Cranford
... ... Wright, 129 ... So. 891; Alabama Hotel Co. v. Mott Iron Works, 98 ... So. 825; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Fridge-Forth, 101 So ... 808; Bronson v. Shulten, 26 L.Ed. 997, 104 U.S. 410; ... Woodward Iron Co. v. Brown, [173 Miss. 155] 52 So ... 829; Altenberg v. Grant, 83 F. 880; Mayflower ... common-law courts would apply to this court. In the case of ... Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 26 L.Ed. 797, we ... find this apt statement: "It is a general rule of law, ... that all the judgments, decrees or other orders of ... ...
-
King v. Davis
...(I have not access to Archbold's Practice, from which the quotation is made), it seems probable that this is a misprint (Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 416, 26 L.Ed. 799; Sibbald v. U.S., 12 Pet. 492, 9 L.Ed. 1169; Bank v. Moss, 6 How. 38, 12 L.Ed. 334) and should have read, 'Error in proces......
-
REEXAMINING RECALL OF MANDATE: LIMITATIONS ON THE INHERENT POWER TO CHANGE FINAL JUDGMENTS.
...Glass, 322 U.S. at 255-56 (Roberts, J., dissenting); In re Nat'l Park Bank of N.Y., 256 U.S. 131, 133 (1921); Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 417 (1881); Wash. Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 44 U.S. 413, 424 (1845); Browder v. McArthur, 20 U.S. 58, 58 (1822); Cameron v. McRoberts, 16 U.S. 591, 5......