Magone v. Origet
| Decision Date | 02 December 1895 |
| Citation | 70 F. 778 |
| Parties | MAGONE, Collector, v. ORIGET. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
In 1887 Arthur Origet imported into the port of New York, by the vessels La Champagne, Aurania, Adriatic, and Umbria merchandise specified in four invoices and four entries which consisted of woolen cloths, to be used for overcoats and cut into lengths suitable for single garments. The general appraiser found that the market value of the goods was greater than the invoice valuation, and, upon the importations by the Aurania, Adriatic and Umbria, increased the valuation more than 10 per cent. above the invoices and entered value of each of said importations. The collector exacted duty upon the value of the Revised Statutes. Upon the importation by La Champagne, the appraiser advanced the market value over the entered value to an amount less than 10 per cent. thereof, and the collector liquidated the duty upon the value as thus increased, without penalty. Upon the importer's application for a reappraisement, the collector appointed Mr. Abram Baudoine as a merchant appraiser to act with the general appraiser upon the entry of La Champagne, and appointed Mr. Julius Ballin as a merchant appraiser to act upon the reappraisement of the merchandise specified in each of the other entries. Upon these reappraisements, the advanced valuations first made by the general appraiser were sustained. The importer, in proper season, protested against the exaction of duty by the collector on the increased valuations, the protest stating in divers forms, that the reappraisement included, in its estimate of value, charges and items which were expressly excluded by section 7 of the act of March, 1883 (22 Stat. 523), and that therefore the reappraisement included illegal items and proceeded upon a principle prohibited by the statute. The protest implied, if it did not express, that one of the merchant appraisers was not experienced in the merchandise in question and familiar therewith. Argument upon the sufficiency of this part of the protest was made in the briefs of counsel: but as no mention of this point was made in the assignment of errors, it was disregarded by the court, in accordance with Rule 11. 11 C.C.A. cii., 47 F. vi.
Two questions of fact, only, were presented on the trial in the circuit court. One related to the competency of Mr. Ballin. The other was whether the items, if any, which were added by Mr. Baudoine and his associate to the net cost of uncut goods were the identical items which the statute required to be disregarded. The two merchant appraisers were the only witnesses in the case. At the close of the testimony, neither party asked to go to the jury upon a disputed question of fact, and each asked for a direction for a verdict in his favor. The court was of opinion, from Mr. Ballin's own testimony, that he was not an experienced merchant, who was familiar with the character and value of the goods in question, and, from Mr. Baudoine's testimony, that he added to the net cost of goods in lengths, the cost of ticketing and tying up the cut goods and making them ready for shipment, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff. To this direction the defendant excepted.
Section 2907 of the Revised Statutes provided as follows:
'In determining the dutiable value of merchandise, there shall be added to the cost, or to the actual wholesale price or general market value at the time of exportation in the principal markets of the country from whence the same has been imported into the United States, the cost of transportation, shipment, and transshipment, with all the expenses included, from the place of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is made to the United States; the value of the sack, box or covering of any kind in which such merchandise it contained; commission at the usual rates, but in no case less than two and a half per centum; and brokerage, export duty, and all other actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment.'
Section 14 of the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. 186), entitled 'An act to amend the customs laws and repeal moieties,' provided as follows 'That whenever any statute requires that, to the cost or market value of any goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States, there shall be added to the invoice thereof, or, upon the entry of such goods, wares, and merchandise, charges for * * * any other incidental expenses attending the packing, shipping, or exportation thereof from the country or place where purchased or manufactured, the omission, without intent thereby to defraud the revenue, to add and state the same on such invoice or entry shall not be cause of a forfeiture of such goods, wares, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Mulkey
...58 P. 776; 26 So. 854; 51 S.E. 799. Searcy & Parks, for appellee. A decision of the case by a jury was waived. 123 S.W. 384; 21 N.E. 130; 70 F. 778; 35 App. 774; 90 N.Y. 649; 97 N.Y. 586; N.Y.S. 69; 7 N.Y. 645; 14 N.Y.S. 917; 87 Hun 563; 34 N.Y. 557; 16 N.Y.S. 202; 64 N.E. 194; 171 N.Y. 488......
-
United States v. Bishop
... ... facts? and was there any error in its declaration or ... application of the law? Beutell v. Magone, 157 ... U.S.154, 157, 15 Sup.Ct. 566, 39 L.Ed. 654; The City of New ... York, 147 U.S.72, 77, 13 Sup.Ct. 211, 37 L.Ed. 84; Laing ... v. Rigney, ... L.R.A. 708; The Francis Wright, 105 U.S. 381, 26 L.Ed. 1100; ... Merwin v. Magone, 70 Fed.776, 777, 17 C.C.A.361, ... 362; Magone v. Origet, 70 F. 778, 781, 17 C.C.A ... 363, 366; Chrystie v. Foster, 61 F. 551, 9 C.C.A ... 606; Stanford v. McGill (N.D.) 72 N.W.938, 952; ... Mayer v ... ...
-
Tyson-Long Co. v. Wolfe
...v. Vreeland, 250 U.S. 295, 39 S.Ct. 438, 63 L.Ed. 989, 3 A.L.R. 1038; La Crosse Plow Co. v. Pagenstecher (C.C.A.) 253 F. 46; Magone v. Origet (C.C.A.) 70 F. 778; Allegheny Valley Brick Co. v. C. W. Raymond Co. (C.C.A.) 219 F. 477; Tri-Bullion Smelting & Development Co. v. Jacobsen (C.C.A.) ......
-
Minahan v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co.
...there was no disputed question of fact, and there were no special requests. Merwin v. Magone, 70 F. 776, 17 C.C.A. 361; Magone v. Origet, 70 F. 778, 17 C.C.A. 363; Bradley Timber Co. v. White, 121 F. 779, 58 55; United States v. Bishop, 125 F. 181, 60 C.C.A. 123; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Kerr, 1......