United States v. Coppell, 48 F. 367

United States v. Coppell

48 F. 367 | S.D.N.Y. | 1891

Buowx, J.

On the first question 1 think it my duty to rule for the government, as regards the contingencies that prevented the intention of the shippers from being carried out and the undertaking specified in the bond from being fulfilled. All such contingencies as interfere with the performance of the stipulations of a bond like this are at the risk of the bondsmen and owners of the goods who undertake to transfer them from one warehouse to another. So far as the United States are concerned, this bond did not contemplate any transportation of the goods to Mexico. No doubt that was the ultimate intention of the owners; but,, finding that they could not make any arrangement to send the goods directly to Mexico, because the carriers had not given the bonds required by law to enable them to take goods there, a different proposition had to be made to the government, which was simply that the goods should be transported from the warehouse in New York to the warehouse in New Orleans. This bond, construed with the statutes and regulations, imports virtually a contract between the partios and the government to do that tiling, and nothing more. The government had possession of the goods, holding them for duties. It was the right of the importers under the laws to ship them directly and continuously to Mexico, provided they could find carriers who complied with the necessary conditions. Not being able to do so, they had to avail themselves, therefore, of another provision of the law, which allowed a removal of the goods from the warehouse in New York to the warehouse in New Orleans. That they arranged to do by giving the bond upon which this suit is brought. The government officers having the goods in their possession for the payment of duties, could not release them or deliver possession of them to any one, except under the provisions of law by which the duties are either to be paid or secured. The law provides for the removal from one port of the United States to another port in *370the United States upon conditions somewhat different from those for removal to a foreign country; and, as these owners could not remove the goods directly to Mexico, they arranged to remove them to New Orleans. ri’hat was all that the United States assented to in this case, although I have no doubt that it was merety the first step, so far as the shippers were concerned, in the intended transportation to Mexico. In order to remove the goods to the New Orleans warehouse the defendants gave this bond, which provides expressly that they shall deliver the goods to the collector there, enter them suitably* for warehousing, and .then produce here a certificate that the goods have been warehoused there. The last two provisions are merely'- designed to secure the first, namely, the proper delivery to the collector there. The proper delivery for warehousing must be made by means of an entry for warehousing. The defendants agreed to make that entry, or else pay double the amount of duties imposed upon them here. Such a bond is one that it is competent for the secretary of the treasury to require under the act of congress.

Mr. Rives. We make no exception to that point, your honor.

Bbown, J. Section 3000 states what should be done:

“Any merchandise duly entered for warehousing maybe withdrawn under bond, without payment of the duties, from a bonded warehouse in any collection district, and be transported to a bonded warehouse in any other collection district and rewarehoused thereat; and any such merchandise may be so transported to its destination wholly by land, or wholly by water, or partially by land and partially by water, over such routes as the secretary of the treasury may prescribe; and may be likewise conveyed over any foreign territory, the government of which may have or shall by treaty stipulations grant a free right of way over such territory.”

The next section provides:

' “The secretary of the treasury shall prescribe the form of the, bond to be given for the transportation o,f merchandise from a port in one collection district to a port in another collection district, as provided in the preceding section, also the time for such delivery; and for a failure to transport and deliver within the time limited any such bonded merchandise to the collector at the designated port a duty of double the amount to which said merchandise would be liable shall be collected, which duty shall be secured by such bond.”

That is a statutory requirement, which the secretary had no right to waive. He was required to take a bond, in which, among other things, it was conditioned that, if this delivery was not made as required, double duty should be paid. Concede, then, all that has been testified to in this case. The goods arrived at New Orleans-under a special manifest, which on its face showed what was the obligation of the parties there, namely, to deliver them to the collector at New Orleans for warehousing. This required not merely a nominal and formal deliver}' to some representative of the collector,-or the mere bringing of them into the collection district, but an actual entry, and a delivery of them to the collector for warehousing. And, that there should he no doubt about that, the regulation of the treasury department prescribes that specific duty, and that *371is one of the conditions of this bond. That was a suitable provision to secure the object of the statute. When the goods arrived at Xew Orleans it was no doubt through the mistake or blunder of the inspector of customs there that the proper disposition of the goods was not made. They were not sent to the warehouse. Xo steps were taken to that end: but the inspector, having been notified that there were goods in bond there on the vessel, looks at the paper, — this very manifest, which i-t is proved was pul into his hands, — indorses it, makes some memorandum upon it, and then directs the goods to bo loaded on the Texas Pacific cars for El Paso. They were so shipped, and wont on to Mexico. Xo doubt, if there had been any existing agreement by which the government had arranged for the transportation of these goods to Mexico, the inspector's act would have been a mere irregularity, from which it suffered no harm or loss. But it is impossible for the court to look beyond the actual arrangement to which the government was a party; and, as I said in the beginning, the only arrangement to which the government was a party was a transfer of these goods from a New York bonded warehouse to a Xew Orleans bonded warehouse. That was interrupted, as may be assumed from the evidence in this case, by no fault whatever of the shippers; no more than if the ship had foundered on the voyage, or the goods been burned at the wharf, or captured by pirates, or otherwise lost. The intention of the shippers was defeated, indeed, by something over which they had no control; but nevertheless the thing that they had contracted for was not done. At whose risk were these contingencies? Upon a bond like this, they were, I think, at the risk of the bondsmen. The government, having possession of the goods lor the purpose of collecting duties, in effect says to the owner: “You may ship the goods to New Orleans, if you choose; but you must put them in warehouse there, as security for the duties; and you must take all the risk of the passage, and of whatever may defeat the due entry of the goods for warehousing in Xew Orleans,”— save perhaps the act of God and of public enemies. What the owners and these defendants agreed to do has not been done, and the government loses its duties. Is it any defense in a suit, upon such a contract to say that the goods tailed to roach the warehouse through no fault of the defendants? J think not. The inspector's negligence, if it was simple negligence, was not, legally chargeable against the government, as its own negligence. The inspector’s fault was not the government’s fault. The government did not assume these risks. On this ground 1 must direct a verdict for the government, there being no disputed question of fact. 1 have purposely received almost all the evidence offered, in order to show' as fully as possible the facts as to these iwo points, viz.', whether the failure to warehouse in New Orleans occurred by any fault on the part of the shippers; and, second, whether the goods did go into Mexico, where the owners intended them to go: so that the legal question may be presented in its simplest form, arid any error on my part, if there be error, most easily reviewed and corrected. On both points 1 am quite satisfied; so that, if the defendants’ design *372had been accomplished by the government’s assent, and in the way provided by law, the government would not have lost anything. But I must hold the defendants liable, for the reason that the government never did assent, and was no party, to the defendants’ ultimate design. The only arrangement the government made was that it would permit the removal of the goods from the New York bonded warehouse to the New Orleans bonded warehouse, leaving the parties, after the goods arrived there, to obtain by some new arrangement with the government the right to remove the goods to Mexico. Verdict directed for the plaintiff in double the amount of the duties, with interest.