Fennerstein Champagne

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSWAYNE
Citation70 U.S. 145,3 Wall. 145,18 L.Ed. 121
PartiesFENNERSTEIN'S CHAMPAGNE
Decision Date01 December 1865

70 U.S. 145
18 L.Ed. 121
3 Wall. 145
FENNERSTEIN'S CHAMPAGNE.
December Term, 1865

ON a libel of information and seizure in the District Court for the Northern District of California, the question was whether certain champagne wines made at Rheims, in France, and invoiced for this country in October, 1863, had been knowingly invoiced below 'the actual market value of them at the time and place when and where manufactured,' at which actual value the statute requires that they should be valued.1 Upon the trial, as appeared by the bill of exceptions, the claimants introduced testimony tending

Page 146

to show that champagne wines in the hands of the manufacturers in the champagne district of France, in a manufactured state, ready for consumption, have no fixed actual market value, and are not sold or dealt in at the place of production. To rebut this evidence and for the purpose of showing that such wines are held for sale at current rates and prices, at which they are freely offered and sold there, and also to show, among other things, the market value of the wines in question, the United States offered in evidence seven letters, dated on and between October 27, 1863, and May 12, 1864, from various persons, large dealers at Rheims, where, as already said, the wines were manufactured. One will exhibit the type of all:

'RHEIMS, 29th of April, 1864.

'MR. AMOS HILL, OF CALIFORNIA, Edwards's Hotel, Hanover Square, London.

'I received the letter which you have done me the honor to write to me, under date of Liverpool, 26th instant, and I hasten to answer it. I sell only one single quality of champagne wine, 'Qualit e Superieure,' Eugene Cliquot's brand. The price of this wine is four francs the bottle, and four and a quarter francs the two half-bottles, taken at Rheims, packing included; and I allow 3 per cent. discount for payment in cash. I know perfectly well the kinds of wine which suit the American taste. My brand is also very highly appreciated in New York and California. I have put the price at the lowest that I can sell wine, in consideration of the importance of your orders, and in the hope of establishing permanent relations with your respectable house.

'Accept, Monsieur, my hearty salutations.

'EUGENE CLIQUOT.'

To the introduction of these letters the claimant's counsel objected, assigning the same grounds which were assigned against the introduction of certain Prices-Current in the preceding case of Cliquot's Champagne, to wit: because they were immaterial and irrelevant; because they referred to champagne wines different in kind, quality, and price from those proceeded against in this action; because no actual sale or purchase had been or was proposed to be proved,

Page 147

based upon or connected with the letters offered; assigning also as ground additional that these letters were res inter alios acta, and that the letters in reply to which they were written were not produced.

The court below admitted the letters, and the government had judgment. On error here their admissibility was the point discussed.

Mr. D. B. Eaton, for the claimant: The theory of the law of evidence, on which these letters were received, would seem to have been this: that when the question is, whether there is a market price for an article, and what the same is at a specific time and in a given city, in a foreign country, the facts relative thereto may be proved by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • Hoffman v. Palmer, No. 261.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • July 31, 1942
    ...hospital records were held admissible where there were present "no contemplative motive for falsification." In Re Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 145, 147, 18 L.Ed. 121, the court emphasized the ingredient that "there was no motive to falsify." In Poole v. Dicas, 1 Bing., N.C. 649, 131 Eng......
  • United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, Civ. A. No. 7198.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • March 10, 1950
    ...and business suggestions for future conduct, are also the type of writing contemplated by the statute. Cf. In re Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 145, 18 L.Ed. 121. But see Amtorg Trading Corp. v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 536, All these writings are admissible not only for the purpose of s......
  • American Bonding Co. v. Regents of University
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 14, 1905
    ...Press, 51 F. 377, 2 C. C. A. 282; Whitney v. Thatcher, 117 Mass. 523; Harrison v. Glover, 72 N.Y. 451; Fennerstein's Champagne Case, 3 Wall. 145, 18 L.Ed. 121, and footnotes; Sisson v. C. & T. R. R. Co., 90 Am. Dec. 252, and notes.) The Champagne cases were explained and approved by Field, ......
  • United States v. Aluminum Co. of America
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 15, 1940
    ...those by the Supreme Court of the United States are Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114, 140, 141, 18 L.Ed. 116; Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 145, 146-149, 18 L.Ed. 121, and Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U.S. 468, 480, 481, 16 S.Ct. 1064, 41 L.Ed. 230; those by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • Hoffman v. Palmer, No. 261.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • July 31, 1942
    ...hospital records were held admissible where there were present "no contemplative motive for falsification." In Re Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 145, 147, 18 L.Ed. 121, the court emphasized the ingredient that "there was no motive to falsify." In Poole v. Dicas, 1 Bing., N.C. 649, 131 Eng......
  • United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, Civ. A. No. 7198.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • March 10, 1950
    ...and business suggestions for future conduct, are also the type of writing contemplated by the statute. Cf. In re Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 145, 18 L.Ed. 121. But see Amtorg Trading Corp. v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 536, All these writings are admissible not only for the purpose of s......
  • American Bonding Co. v. Regents of University
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 14, 1905
    ...Press, 51 F. 377, 2 C. C. A. 282; Whitney v. Thatcher, 117 Mass. 523; Harrison v. Glover, 72 N.Y. 451; Fennerstein's Champagne Case, 3 Wall. 145, 18 L.Ed. 121, and footnotes; Sisson v. C. & T. R. R. Co., 90 Am. Dec. 252, and notes.) The Champagne cases were explained and approved by Field, ......
  • United States v. Aluminum Co. of America
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 15, 1940
    ...those by the Supreme Court of the United States are Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114, 140, 141, 18 L.Ed. 116; Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 145, 146-149, 18 L.Ed. 121, and Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U.S. 468, 480, 481, 16 S.Ct. 1064, 41 L.Ed. 230; those by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the......
  • 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