N ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United to IN York, to review a judgment in favor of plaintiffs below for the amount of duties illegally exacted. Statement from brief for plaintiffs in error. This is an action to recover back the sum of $2,496.70, with interest from June 29, 1878, the said sum representing an alleged illegal exaction of duties by the testator of the plaintiffs in error, then Collector of the Port of New York. In June, 1876, one A. M. Sutton duly imported into the United States from Liverpool, in the ship "Lord Clive," eight cases of beads, or rosaries, marked respectively M. F. P. 500, 503-509. The vessel and merchandise were entered at the Port of Philadelphia. One case was entered for consumption and delivered to the importer on payment of the duties assessed against it. The other seven cases were entered for warehouse. On December 13, 1876, the said seven cases were withdrawn for transportation, and were transported in boud from Philadelphia to the City of New York, consigned to C. B. Richard & Boas. | Port of New York to be the value of the goods. The plaintiffs duly protested, but the collector's decision was affirmed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Upon this state of facts, the defendants, hav. ing offered no testimony, the judge directed the jury to find for the plaintiffs to the whole extent of their claim, to which ruling the defendants excepted. Messrs. A. H. Garland, Atty-Gen., and Wm. A. Maury, Assist. Atty-Gen., for plaintiffs in error: The collector could re-appraise. The pay. inent was voluntary. U. S. v. Schlesinger, 120 U. S. 109 (30: 607). error: Duties can only be assessed at the port of original entry. No enhanced duty could accrue except by the action of the appraiser at Philadelphia. Spring v. Russell, 1 Low. 258. Judgment affirmed with costs and interest, by a divided court. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY [396] RAILWAY COMPANY, Piff. in Err., v. GEORGE M. GRAY. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 396-397.) A writ of error to review a decree of the Circuit Court remanding the cause to the State Court: dismissed for want of jurisdiction. [No. 876.] Submitted March 11, 1889. Decided March 18, 1889. INERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa, to review a decree of that Court remanding the cause to the State Court: On motion to dismiss. Dismissed. Mr. John F. Lacey, for defendant in error, in support of motion: There is but one question involved in the motion to dismiss in this cause. On the 16th day of November, 1886, in a suit pending between Geo. M. Gray as plaintiff and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. et al., as defendants, a motion to remand the cause to the District Court of Monroe County, Iowa, was sustained by the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa, and said cause duly remanded. The cause had been removed to the United States Circuit Court prior to the Act of March 3, 1887. It was also remanded prior to the passage of that Act; but the writ of error was not sued out until the 28th of September, 1887, after the Defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error on the following grounds: On the arrival of the packages in New York, the plaintiffs below, Richard & Boas, made a re-warehouse and withdrawal entry of the packages, and thereupon paid the Collector at New York City the duties and charges on said goods, as the same had been liquidated by the Col-passage of said Act. lector of the Port of Philadelphia, and thereupon all of the packages, except one, were delivered to Richard & Boas. One package or case was retained for examination and comparison, and was sent to the appraiser, who found that there had been an undervaluation, and the amount sued for is made up of the duty of 50 per cent on the difference between the valuations and 20 per cent ad valorem on the entire value claimed by the Collector of the 1. Said writ of error was sued out on the 28th day of September, 1897, subsequent to the Act of Congress approve the 3d day of March, 1887. 2. The writ is sued out in a cause where the circuit court remanded the cause to the state court and no writ of error to this court will lie in such a cause. [428] 3. The writ of error is unauthorized and Mr. Isham G. Harris for defendant in Judgment reversed with costs, and cause re- There is only one point involved in this mo- of the cause from the District Court of Iowa THE The defendant in error moved to remand the This is no longer an open question and the JOHN H. BREWER. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 434.) This case dismissed on the ground that the matter Submitted April 22, 1889. Decided May 13, 1889. motion must be sustained, under the following APPEAL from a decree of the Supreme decisions of this court: Morey v. Lockhart, 123 U. S. 56 (31: 68); Messrs. Wirt Dexter and J. J. Herrick Cause dismissed for want of jurisdiction. S. B. ARBUCKLE, Piff. in Err., P. J. QUIGLEY, Clerk of the COUNTY COURT (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 428.) Case reversed on stipulation on the authority of nick (32: 637). [No. 1125.] Decided March 18, 1889. N ERROR to the Supreme Court of the that Court reversing a judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, in favor of Arbuckle, plaintiff, against Quigley, clerk of said County, defendant, for the sum of $6.00 paid under protest by said Arbuckle to said clerk, for the privilege of selling fruit trees as agent of Franklin Davis & Co., citizens of Virginia and doing business in said State. Reversed. The following stipulation was entered into between the parties to this cause: Court of the District of Columbia, enjoining the sale of real estate for taxes and discharging said real estate therefrom. On motion to dismiss. Dismissed. A suit in equity was brought by said Brewer to remove an alleged lien on property for a special tax of $790.23 and interest and certain general taxes amounting to $89.15 with interest. The court decreed that the property should stand relieved from the lien of said taxes on the complainant's depositing in the registry of the court $2,400 which, it was agreed, was sufficient to satisfy a final decree; the court directed that the money so deposited should be held in lieu of the taxes and subject to the disposition of the court in final decree. Upon final hearing (November 2, 1886.) the court decreed that the said real estate should be free from and discharged of all taxes which had been assessed and were in arrears against the same prior to January 3, 1876, the date of the sale mentioned in the deed of the District of Columbia to Albert G. Hall, and perpetually enjoined the said District from attempting to sell said real estate for the enforcement of collection of 400 so deposited be returned to the complain- The appellec now moves to dismiss said ap- Messrs. A. L. Merriman and W. Wil loughby, for appellee in support of motion: "That no appeal or writ of error shall here- 637). It is accordingly agreed that the case "Sec. 2. That the preceding section shall not Messrs. T. B. Turley and Luke E. is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or 23 Stat. at L. 443. Inasmuch as the amount involved does not exceed $2,400, the amount deposited in court to stand in lieu of the lien claimed, it is clear that the jurisdiction of this court is not conferred by the first section of the Act. And it is insisted that the case does not come within any of the exceptions contained in the second section of the Act; it does not involve the validity of any patent or copyright, neither was there drawn in question the validity of any treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States in order to give jurisdiction to this court under the second section of the Act. The question of validity of some Act of Congress exercised under the United States must have been raised in the court below and decided by that court. 214 Adams v. Crittenden, 106 U. S. 576 (27:99); Rev. Stat. § 709; Crowell v. Randell, 85 U. S. 10 Pet. 368 (9: 458); Armstrong v. The Treasurer, 41 U. S. 16 Pet. 281 (10: 965); Brown v. Colorado, 106 U. S. 95 (27: 182); Detroit City R. Co. v. Guthard, 114 U. 8. 133 (29: 118). It may be urged that there are other cases pending, or which have gone to judgment in the court below involving the principles of the case at, bar. The question is one of jurisdiction, and i the amount involved in this case does not confer jurisdiction, it cannot be supplemented by other cases. Adams v. Crittenden, 106 U. S. 576 (27: 99); Ex parte Balt. & O. R. R. Co. 106 U. §. 5 (27: 78). (No one appeared in opposition.) The case dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. 181 U.S. END OF REPORTED CASES IN VOL. 181. FOLLOWING ARE MEMORANDA ОР ALL CASES DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1888, WITHOUT OPINIONS, AND NOT ELSEWHERE OR OTHERWISE REPORTED IN THIS EDITION. [450] THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY | Wager Swayne for appellant. Messrs. John K. 7. THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD Messrs. Wager Swayne and C. J. M. Gwinn for appellant. Mr. John K. Cowen for appellee. October 12, 1888. Dismissed with costs pursuant to the 19th Rule. [428] THE AMERICAN RAILWAY IMPROVEMENT COMPANY v. SEYMOUR D. CARPENTER AND SMITH H. MALLORY, Composing the Firm of Carpenter and Mallory. [No. 9.] In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Messrs. W. W. Howe and J. H. Kennard for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. H. Leonard for defendants in error. April 22, 1889. Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation, un motion of Mr. William A. Mc Kenney in behalf of counsel. [403] CLARENCE P. HUNT . SALLIE S. BLACKBURN et al. [No. 16.] Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. October 22, 1888. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller: On consideration of the motion to vacate the decree of dismissal entered herein on April 9th, 1888, it is now here ordered by the court that said decree be, and the same is hereby, vacated, and the cause restored to the docket. [See Bk. 32, pp. 328 and 488.] |449| THE VACUUM OIL COMPANY 0. THE BUFFALO LUBRICATING OIL COMPANY (Limited). [No. 25.1 Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. Messrs. Theodore Bacon and William F. Cogswell for appellant. Mr. James A. Allen for appellee. October 16, 1888. Dismissed as per stipulation. [451] THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY 7. THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO TELEGRAPH COMPANY. [No. 27.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. Messrs. J. E. McDonald, J. M. Butler and Cowen and W. H. H. Miller for appellee. October 16, 1888. Dismissed with costs pur. suant to the 19th Rule. PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR COMPANY 0. THE [444] COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. [No. 32.] In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania. Messrs. E. S. Isham, William Burry and M. E. Olmsted for plaintiff in error. Messrs. W. S. Kirkpatrick and John F. Sanderson for defendant in error. October 18, 1888. Judgment reversed, with costs, as per stipulation. E. C. MARSHALL and ROBERT CHAPIN, [391] November, 19, 1888. Judgment affirmed on authority of opinion delivered at the last term by Mr. Justice Harlan (See Book 81, p. 475) -announced by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller. Mr. Justice Harlan announced that he now dissented from that opinion. FREDERICK MYERS v. EDWARD C. SMITH. [441] [No. 62.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Messrs. John A. Grow and George Ticknor Curtis for appellant. Mr. Samuel A. Duncan for appellee. November 5, 1888. Dismissed as per stipulation, on motion of Mr. George Ticknor Curtis, of counsel for the appellant. JOSEPH ZIHLMANN 9. THE LABELLE GLASS [452] COMPANY. [No. 64.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. Mr. John F. Kelly for appellant. Mr. G. H. Christy for appellee. November 2, 1888. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule. GEORGE L. EAMES . SARAH J. SAVAGE. [435] 1442] THE NATCHEZ, JACKSON & COLUMBUS RAILROAD Co. v. JOHN M. STONE et al., Railroad Comrs. [No. 89.1 In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. Mr. Wm. L. Nugent for plaintiff in error. No counsel entered for defendants in error. November 20, 1888. Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for plaintiff in error. 1447] ABRAHAM SHENFIELD . SOLOMON SCHIRMER and JACOB BETTS. [No. 91.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Mr. E. N. Dickerson for appellant. Mr. Edmund Wetmore for appellees. November 21, 1888. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule. [427] WILLIAM J. ADAMS v. WM. B. HATCH et al. [No. 103.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. W. G. Griffith for appellant. Mr. F. P. Prichard for appellees. December 4, 1888. Dismissed with costs pursuant to the 10th Rule. 1432] SAMUEL CHRIST et al. v. ANDREW MONS. [No. 104.] December 7, 1888. Dismissed with costs pur suant to the 10th Rule. MARIA C. PILLA et al. . THE GERMAN [443] [No. 120.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. Messrs. W. H. Clopton and W. Hallett Phillips for appellants. Messrs. Henry Hitchcock and G. A. Finkelnburg for appellee. December 19, 1888. Dismissed with costs pursuant to the 10th Rule, on motion of Mr. Linden Kent in behalf of counsel for appellee. CHARLES C. PINCKNEY, JR., . THE STATE [443] OF SOUTH CAROLINA. [No. 124.] In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina. Mr. John F. Ficken for plaintiff in error. THE KENTUCKY CENTRAL RAILROAD COM- [439] In Error to the Court of Appeals in the State of Kentucky, Mr. J. W. Stevenson for plaintiff in error, Mr. Alvin Duvall for defendant in error. December 12, 1888. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 16th Rule, on motion of Mr. Alvin Duvall of counsel for the defendant in error. JAMES M. SEIBERT, Collector of CAPE GIR- [446] [No. 131.] In Error to the Circuit Court of the United Messrs Jeff. Chandler, E. John Ellis, John WILLIAM H. OSMER 0. THE J. B. SICKLES |442] Messrs. William H. Bliss and Paul Bakewell In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Mr. H. C. Parsons for plaintiffs in error. No counsel entered for defendant in error. December 4, 1888. Dismissed with costs pursuant to the 10th Rule. [448] THE UNION TUBING COMPANY et al. v. THE PATTERSON COMPANY, Limited, et al. [No. 112.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. LEILA BRYANT et al v. CHARLES E. WHITE [431] Messrs. O. H. Horton and Hugh L. Mason for appellants. Messrs. Thomas Dent and Robert T. Lincoln for appellees. December 19, 1888. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule. Ex parte: In the Matter of MAX ROSENGAR- [446] TEN, Appellant. [No. 148.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. |