![]() Redfield the amendment was allowed after verdict, and then only upon a stipulation by plaintiffs that they would set aside the verdict if defendant so desired. This was only changing the amount stated to be due under causes of action already enumerated it did not add to the enumeration a distinct and separate cause of action. In the first two plaintiff sought leave to amend by including as to each of several importations already enumerated a claim for excess of fees in addition to excess of duties. An examination of the papers in these three cases, however, does not indicate that they go to the length which counsel contends for. Mere decisions, unaccompanied as are these with any expression of opinion, are unsatisfactory precedents. In support of the application, plaintiff refers to three decisions of this court, viz.: Marks v. A motion is now made to amend this bill of particulars by inserting after the word “worsted” the words, “mousseline delaines above 19 per cent.,” and also to insert at the head of the list Of entries those of, “Australasian, January, 1861,” and “Palestine, January, 1861.” The earliest entry now on the list is under date of April 29, 1861. This last bill sets forth the plaintiff's claim as for “excess of duty paid under protest on worsted and cloth dress goods above 35 per cent., and for excess of fees paid for oaths to entries, stamps on invoices, and orders 582from one department of the custom-house to another, on importations upon which such duties and fees were paid by plaintiff to defendant by the following vessels.” Then follows the name of the importer, and an enumeration of the names of the vessels and dates of entry. A bill of particulars was served in February, 1866, an amended bill in December, 1866, and a further amended bill on November 3, 1882. Above intended to include all entries upon which duties and fees were paid by plaintiff to defendant between April 8, 1861, and September 8, 1864” Held, that the sufficiency of the notice was to be determined on the trial, and not on motion to amend the bill of particulars.Īction to Recover Excess of Duties paid under protest. The original bill of particulars had the following phrase at the bottom: “E. SAME-ACTION TO RECOVER-NOTICE-SUFFICIENCY. St, § 3012, by the act of February 18, 1867, was not before the court on a motion to amend such bill of particulars.ģ. ![]() Held, that the question of the repeal of Rev. Section 26 of that act, requiring service of a bill of particulars in actions to recover excess of duties paid under protest within 30 days after notice of defendant's appearance, was re-enacted in Rev St. The act of congress of February 18, 1867, provides (section 1) that all such suits or prosecutions as have been or shall be commenced under any prior acts of congress repealed or supplied by the act of July 18, 1866, for acts committed previous to that date, shall be tried and disposed of, etc., as if the act of July 18th, had not been passed. ![]() § 3012, the discretion was to be exercised only in extreme cases, and the plaintiff was not within the rule. & 954, providing for amendments for defects of form, the court had power to allow amendments of the bill of particulars after the 30 days limited by Rev. ![]() In fact, the dates, as proposed, were “January, 1861.” Held that, although under Rev. Neither the merchandise, the vessel, nor the dates of invoice, entry, payment, or protest, were, as to the items forming the subject of the motion, stated in the bill. ![]() In the latter part of 1887 the plaintiff moved to further amend. The earliest entry was of date April 29, 1861. The bill of particulars was served the following February, an amended bill in December of the same year, and a further amended bill November 8, 1882. CUSTOM DUTIES-ACTION TO RECOVER-AMENDMENT OF BILL-LAPSE OF TIME.Īn action against the collector to recover excess of duties paid under protest was begun January, 1866. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |