37. A new trial was granted on pay-
purposes of duties, according to the
intrinsic value of such foreign money
compared with the money of the
United States.
ment of costs, on account of the loss
of papers in the Custom-House, and
because it was doubtful whether the
truth of the transaction appeared on
the trial, for the want of the proper 41. At common law, an action for
preparation of the defence.
id.
money had and received lies against
a person who wrongfully withholds
goods from another, colore officii,
upon an illegal claim or demand, and
thus compels him to pay money to
obtain them. Knoedler v. Schell, 484
38. Under the proviso to the 61st sec-
tion of the Act of March 2d, 1799,
(1. U. S. Stat. at Large, 673,) which
authorizes the President to make fit
and proper regulations for estimating
the duties on imported goods, in
respect to which the cost shall be ex-
hibited in a depreciated foreign cur-
rency, the President cannot fix an ar-
bitrary value to such foreign curren-
cy, without regard to its intrinsic
value, as compared with the money
of the United States. De Forest v.
Redfield,
39. A consular certificate, attached to
an invoice, as to the value of the for-
eign currency in which the invoice
is made out, is only prima facie evi-
dence of such value, and may be con-
tradicted by the importer.
id.
40. An importer being required, under
the 36th section of the Act of March
2d, 1799, (1 U. S. Stat. at Large,
655,) to specify in his entry the
species of money in which the in-
voice is made out, and it being re-
quired by the 2d section of the Act
of March 3d, 1801, (2 Id. 121,)
that the invoices of goods subject to
ad valorem duties, shall be made out
in the currency of the country from
which the importation is made, and
shall contain a statement of the ac-
tual cost in such currency, without
respect to the value of the coins of the
United States in such country, and
it being provided by the 61st section
of the Act of March 2d, 1799, (1 Id.
673,) that all denominations of for-
eign money not therein enumerated
shall be estimated in value, as nearly
as may be, according to the intrinsic
value thereof compared with money
of the United States, an importer,
whose invoice and entry are correct-
ly made out in a denomination of for-
eign money not enumerated in said
61st section, is entitled to have the
value of his goods estimated, for the
42. The Act of March 3d, 1839, (5 U.
S. Stat. at Large, 348, § 2,) took
away that common law right, as
respected suits against a Collector of
customs to recover back duties ille-
gally exacted on importations.
43. The Act of February 26th, 1845,
(5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727,) restored
such common law right, and, under
it, an execution can issue against a
defendant, to recover from him per-
sonally the amount of a judgment
obtained against him for duties ille-
gally exacted by him, as a Collector
of customs.
id.
1. Where a witness examined by depo-
sition, taken ex parte, under the Act
of Congress, on the ground that he
resided more than one hundred miles
from the place of trial, produced be-
fore the officer who took the deposi-
tion a copy of an original paper, to
which he had access, and from which
he took the copy, and testified that
it was a correct copy, but the ori-
ginal was not produced before the
officer: Held, that the proof was not
competent evidence of the contents of
the original paper. Comstock
Carnley,
road for R., and to take in pay the
bonds of R., which were to be ad-
vanced to J. on his giving security to
apply the proceeds to the construc-
tion of the road. C. became such
security. J. received the bonds, and
purchased goods with their proceeds.
The goods were attached as the prop-
erty of J., under process issued
against him by D., a creditor of his.
C.then sued D., in trover, for the goods,
claiming that the bonds and the
goods had been assigned to him, as
his indemnity for becoming such se-
curity, by J., and were his property
until applied to the construction of
the road. On the trial, J. was exam-
ined as a witness for C. Quere,
whether J. was a competent witness
for C. Semble, that he was not, be-
cause, if the verdict should be for D.,
J. would not only be liable to C. for
the property, but, as a principal in
the transaction, would be bound to
indemnify C. for the expenses of the
litigation, and thus the balance of
interest would be disturbed. id.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.com.pe/books/content?id=tf47AAAAIAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA568&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=editions:OXFORD555039118&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1cRiWhU2coJ9OMlQsiuxo96oFCDQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=494,764,380,76)
5. Where C., who was President of the
Taunton Locomotive Company, sub-
scribed to the stock of a railroad
company, "payable in cash on the
delivery of the last engine of twelve
from the Taunton Locomotive Manu-
factory:" Held, in an action against
C. for the amount of the subscription,
that it was competent for C. to put in
evidence a contract made by the
Taunton Company with the railroad
company, on the same date with the
subscription, for the delivery of
twelve engines, and to show by parol
that that was the contract referred
to in the subscription, and that all
twelve of the engines referred to in
it had not been delivered. Rutland
& Burlington R. R. Co., v. Crocker,
6. Under the 34th section of the Judi-
ciary Act of September 24th, 1789,
(1 U. S. Stat. at Large, 92,) which
provides that "the laws of the seve-
ral States, except where the Consti-
tution, treaties, or statutes of the
4. Nor, on such a bill, can this Court
compel the defendants to elect be-
tween such two suits, on the appre-
hension that there may be a recovery
in the suit on the bond, for the non-
delivery of goods which may be
condemned as forfeited in the other
suit.
id.
5. A Court of Equity has no right to
interfere with the strict legal rights
of the United States under the rev-
enue laws. Relief against the injus-
tice of enforcing their provisions in
respect to penalties and forfeitures,
must proceed from the Treasury De-
id.
partment.
6. Under § 1 of the Act of March 2d,
1821, (3 U. S. Stat. at Large, 616,)
which provides, that merchandise,
subject to duty, coming into the
United States, from any foreign
territory adjacent to the United
States, shall be forfeited, if the mas-
ter of the vessel in which it is
brought does not, immediately on
his arrival within the United States,
present a true, sworn manifest of the
merchandise to the proper collector,
or deputy collector, the forfeiture is
incurred if either a false manifest is
presented, or if none is presented.
182
134,901 Feet of Pine Lumber,
1. Semble, that, on a redelivery bond,
given to the United States, under $4
of the Act of May 28th, 1830, (4 U.
S. Slat. at Large, 410,) in the penalty
of $20,000, on which the estimated
value of the entry is endorsed as
$3,357, and by a stipulation in which
its penalty is to be deemed double
that sum, it is not necessary that
the United States should recover 7.
$20,000, if entitled to recover at all,
where the goods not redelivered are
worth less than such estimated value.
Powell v. Redfield,
The officer, to whom the manifest
must be presented, has no power to
waive the requirements of the law,
and allow the goods to enter the
United States without a compliance
with them.
id.
The law requires the master to pre-
sent the manifest immediately on his
arrival, and he is not entitled to
twenty-four hours time to do so. id.
The Reciprocity Treaty between the
United States and Great Britain, of
June 5th, 1854, (10 U. S. Stat. at
Large, 1089,) and the Act of August
5th, 1854, (Id., 587,) providing for
carrying into effect that treaty, did
not operate to repeal the previous
laws, as it respects penalties and for-
feitures that had already been in-
curred. Their effect was to suspend
the previous statutes after a given
time, so far only as they affected cer-
|