One Pearl Chain v. United States
Citations
- 123 F. 371
- 59 C.C.A. 499
- 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4002
Syllabus
<p>1. Trial—Motion to Direct Yerdtct—Question for Jury—Waiver.</p> <p>That the claimant, in an action to recover property seized for failure to declare the same for duty, moved the court to direct a verdict in her favor, did not constitute a waiver of her right to reserve exceptions to the refusal of her request to send the case to the jury after the denial of her motion to direct.</p> <p>2. Customs Duties—Nondeclared Merchandise—Forfeiture—Information.</p> <p>Rev. St § 3082 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2014], declares that if any person shall fraudulently or knowingly import or bring into the United States any merchandise contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, or sell merchandise knowing the same to • have been imported, etc., the merchandise- shall be forfeited and the offender fined. Held, that the words “contrary to law” related to legal provisions not found in the section itself, and hence an information alleging that an importation was made contrary to law, without declaring the same for duty, but failing to allege violation of any other regulation than tliose prescribed in the statute, limited the prosecution to proof of a violation of such provisions.</p> <p>8. Same—Baggage—Merchandise.</p> <p>Where a passenger on a steamer purchased a pearl necklace before her departure from Paris, and by reason of its value wore the same about her neck when she made her declaration for duty, instead of having the same among her baggage, and the necklace was visible on her person, it was subject to declaration under the statutes and rules regulating passengers’ baggage, and not under the regulations providing for the importation of merchandise.</p> <p>4. Same—Failure to Declare—Fraudulent Intent.</p> <p>When custom house officers boarded a steamship on which claimant was a passenger, a blank for the declaration of articles liable to duty was presented to her for execution. She declined to execute it, but appeared before the officer for examination, and informed him t
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that claims forms and additional investigation at the damages stage can determine whether an individual’s debt was incurred for personal or business purposes
- statute of limitations began to run ón date that the defendant initiated the garnishment proceeding, not on the earlier date when the defendant had filed its state court action and received a favorable judgment against the plaintiff
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lacombe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.