Robertson v. Frank Bros Co
| Decision Date | 28 October 1889 |
| Citation | 10 S.Ct. 5,132 U.S. 17,33 L.Ed. 236 |
| Parties | ROBERTSON, Collector, v. FRANK BROS. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Sol. Gen. Chapman, for plaintiff in error.
H. E. Tremain, M. W. Tyler, and W. B. Coughtey, for defendants in error.
This is an action to recover for an alleged overcharge of duties on imports. The goods imported were bananas brought from Aspinwall. The duty was 10 per cent. ad valorem. The plaintiffs offered evidence tending to show the market value of the bananas at the port of shipment, which was claimed to be only 50 cents apiece for the large bunches, and 25 cents apiece for the small bunches. The invoices received with the cargo exhibited this as the true market value. and added certain charges for labor and consul fees. The appraisers required the plaintiffs to add 50 per cent. of these amounts as transportation charges for bringing the bananas into Aspin wall, and also certain shipping charges and commissions. The plaintiffs protested against this as an unjust addition; but whenever it was omitted the charge was added by the appraiser, and a penalty of 20 per cent. of the whole duty was imposed and exacted; and the officers declared that this would be done whenever the addition should be omitted. To avoid this penalty, and to get immediate possession of their goods, (which are of a perishable nature,) the plaintiffs made the addition required, and paid the increased duties that resulted, but always under protest, as before stated. The form of the entries and invoices, with the additions, was as follows, the additions being in italies:
Entry.
'Two bins of bananas, containing 4,132 large bunches, at sixty cents,' 'pesos, 2,479.20,' '3,463 small bunches at thirty cents,' '1,038.90 pesos.'
'Charges, two hundred and thirty-nine pesos.'
'Shipping charges added, as required by the appraiser, to make five cents Colombian currency per bunch, 140.38 pesos.'
'Transportation charges added, as required by appraiser, on 4,132 large bunches at 25 cents, $1,033, and 3,463 small bunches at 12 1/2 cents, $432.87.'
Invoice.
'Invoice of merchandise shipped by the Frank Bros. Co. on board the Alsa, Sansome, master, bound for New York, and consigned to Frank Bros. Co.; Colon, Feb. 11, 1882, 2 bins, containing:
The appraiser's return indorsed thereon was as follows: 'Value correct, with importer's additions.'
It was contended by the counsel for the government at the trial, and is contended here, that the payment of the duties complained of was a voluntary payment, inasmuch as the plaintiffs themselves made the additions to the entries and invoices, and that therefore they cannot recover back any part of the money so paid; and they requested the court below to instruct the jury to render a verdict for the defendant. This the court refused to do, and left it to the jury to decide, upon the evidence, whether the making of the additions was a voluntary act on the part of the plaintiffs, or done under constraint, in view of the penalty sure to be imposed in case it was not done. On this point the judge, in his charge to the jury, speaking of the entry and the additions made by the plaintiffs or their agent, said: 'He says he put them on there because he was compelled to. If that is so, he ought not to be estopped from recovering, and here is a question for you on that subject, and you will decide it in this way: If those statements and figures were put on there because he thought that was the best way, on the whole; if, exercising his own judgment freely, he thought that it was the best way to get along with this to put it on there are let it go,—he can't take it back; * * * he can't recover anything back. The verdict will have to be for the defendant anyway, if that is so, because it was his own act in putting it on there. The collector assessed the duty just as he made it, and he can't complain.
Under this charge, of course, the jury, in finding for the plaintiffs, must have found that they acted under constraint—under moral duress—in making the additions for transportation and labor. We do not see how the verdict can be set aside for error in the charge on this point, unless the law be that virtual or moral duress is insufficient to prevent a payment made under its influence from being voluntary. This point was discussed in Maxwell v. Griswold, 10 How. 242, 256, and in Swift Co. v. U. S., 111 U. S. 22, 28, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244. In Maxwell v. Griswold an appraisement was erroneously made as to the point of time of the valuation, and the importer paid the consequent excess of duties. The government contended that this was voluntary. But this court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Scissor-Tail, SCISSOR-TAIL
...imposed terms in the AFofM's contract form. His situation was comparable to that of the importer in Robertson v. Frank Brothers Co. (1889) 132 U.S. 17, 23, 10 S.Ct. 5, 7, 33 L.Ed. 236, a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the argument that a particular payment to ......
-
Bratberg v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., 5872.
...(Eng.) 805; Maxwell v. Griswold, 10 How. 242, 13 L. Ed. 405;Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137, 9 L. Ed. 373;Robertson v. Frank Bros. Co., 132 U. S. 17, 10 S. Ct. 5, 33 L. Ed. 236; De Bow's Case, 11 Ct. Cl. 672, affirmed United States v. Norton, 97 U. S. 164, 24 L. Ed. 907;Chase v. Dwinal, 7......
-
Cunningham v. Potts
...v. State, 102 Wash. 494, 173 P. 430; Duke v. Force, 120 Wash. 599, 620, 621, 208 P. 67, 23 A. L. R. 1354; Robertson v. Frank Bros. Co., 132 U. S. 17-23, 10 S. Ct. 5, 33 L. Ed. 236; Robertson v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 491, 501, 10 S. Ct. 158, 33 L. Ed. 405; Swift & Courtney & Beecher Co. v. Uni......
-
Dallas County Community College v. Bolton
...See Austin Nat'l Bank, 71 S.W.2d at 246 (classifying business compulsion as implied duress); Robertson v. Frank Bros. Co., 132 U.S. 17, 23, 10 S.Ct. 5, 33 L.Ed. 236 (1889) ("When the duress has been exerted by one clothed with official authority, or exercising a public employment, less evid......