History
  • No items yet
midpage
Morlot v. Lawrence
17 F. Cas. 772
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...
1853
Check Treatment
BETTS, District Judge.

The appraisement was void in law, and did not justify the defendant in imposing and exacting duties on a valuation higner than the invoice valuation, or in levying any additional duties thereto. The appraisers were required, by the 16th section of the act of August 30th, 1842 (5 Stat. 563), to appraise the goods at their value at the time of purchase, and the instructions of the secretary of the treasury did not authorize them to appraise the value at the time of exportation. The illegality having been specifically pointed out to the defendant by the *773protest, he is liable for the exaction made tinder the appraisement.

Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum so paid, (the amount to be adjusted at the custom-house), together with interest.

Case Details

Case Name: Morlot v. Lawrence
Court Name: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
Date Published: Dec 15, 1853
Citation: 17 F. Cas. 772
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.