TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Luyties

United States v. Luyties, 130 F. 333 (2d Cir. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 14, 1904
Docket
No. 166
Citations
130 F. 33364 C.C.A. 5791904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4166
Syllabus
1. Customs Duties — Recipeocal Agbeement with Fbance — Place of Ex-POETATION. A bill of lading for certain merchandise was made out in Switzerland, but the invoice was certified by a United States consul in France, and the evidence showed France to have been the country of production, and from which the merchandise was exported. Held, that the importation was within the reciprocal commercial agreement with France and the United States, May 30, 1898, 30 Stat. 1774, negotiated under the authority of section 3, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, 30 Stat. 203 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1690],
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The decision of the Circuit Court (124 Fed. 977) affirmed an unpublished decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which followed Nicholas v. U. S. (C. C.) 122 Fed. 892, and reversed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York on merchandise imported by Luyties Bros.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The principal contention advanced in argument is disposed of in our opinion in U. S. v. Julius Wile Bros. & Co., 130 Fed. 331 , handed down to-day. An additional point is made that the article in question was not produced in and exported from France.

*334 The absinthe was shipped from Basle, in Switzerland, by a through bill of lading via Antwerp to New York. The bill of lading is dated several days after the invoice, and the importer explained that Pontarlier, France, where the invoice is dated, was not a shipping point where the agents of the Red Star Dine accept freight, and therefore the goods had to be sent first to Basle, where through bill of lading could be obtained. The invoice was consulated at Dijon, and there is no evidence in the case to controvert the statement of the special deputy collector that “the goods were imported * * * from France.”

The decision of. the Circuit Court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1905: 11939: 11958: 119052026peak 1905 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Pettingill & Co.137 F. 143 (D. Mass. 1905)
  2. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. United States169 F. Supp. 268 (Cust. Ct. 1958)
  3. East Asiatic Co. v. United States2 Cust. Ct. 474 (Cust. Ct. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. United States169 F. Supp. 268 (Cust. Ct. 1958)
  2. East Asiatic Co. v. United States2 Cust. Ct. 474 (Cust. Ct. 1939)
  3. In re Pettingill & Co.137 F. 143 (D. Mass. 1905)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Julius Wile Bro. & Co., 130 F. 331 (2d Cir. 1904) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list