US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

NICHOLS V. UNITED STATES, 74 U. S. 122 (1868)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 74 U. S. 122 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Nichols v. United States, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 122 122 (1868)

Nichols v. United States

74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 122


1. Under the Act of Congress of February 26, 1845, relative to the recovery of duties paid under protest, a written protest, signed by the party, with a statement of the definite grounds of objection to the duties demanded and paid, is a condition precedent to a right to sue in any court for their recovery.

2. Cases arising under the Revenue Laws, are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.

An Act of Congress of February 26, 1845, [Footnote 1] construing a former act relative to duties paid under protest, says:

"Nor shall any action be maintained against any collector, to

Page 74 U. S. 123

recover the amount of duties so paid under protest, unless the said protest was made in writing and signed by the claimant, at or before the payment of said duties, setting forth distinctly and specifically the grounds of objection to the payment thereof."

In this state of the statute law, Nichols & Co., merchants of New York, imported from abroad to that city, in 1847-51, certain casks of liquor. Duties were imposed at the customhouse, at New York, on the quantity invoiced; that is to say, on the amounts which the casks contained when they were shipped. A portion of the liquors, however, leaked out during the voyage, and being thus lost, was never imported at all, in fact, into the United States. Notwithstanding this circumstance, Nichols & Co. paid the duties, as imposed; that is to say, duties on the amount as invoiced, making no protest in the matter. They now, July, 1855, by petition, setting forth their case, including the fact that they had "omitted to protest," brought suit against the United States for the overpayment, in the Court of Claims; a court which, by the acts of Congress establishing it, has power to hear and determine

"all claims founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the government of the United States."

The petition asserted the law, as settled by this Court in Lawrence v. Caswell, [Footnote 2] to be, that duty was chargeable only on the value of the liquors imported into the United States, and that the quantity lost by leakage, on the voyage of importation, was not subject to any duty. A view in conformity, as they alleged, with a Treasury circular of January 30, 1847, directing that,

"if the quantity of any article falls short of the amount given in the invoice, . . . an abatement of the duties to the extent of the deficiency will be made. [Footnote 3]"

As a reason for not presenting the claim to the Treasury Department, the petitioners stated that they omitted to protest.

The United States demurred to the petition, and the demurrer chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 74 U. S. 124

being sustained, the petition was dismissed. The importers now appealed. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 74 U. S. 125

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™