Phelps v. Siegfried
142 U.S. 602 (1892)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Phelps v. Siegfried, 142 U.S. 602 (1892)

Phelps v. Siegfried

No. 655

Submitted January 7, 1892

Decided January 11, 1892

142 U.S. 602

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

Invoices of merchandise entitled to free entry were required, in August, 1889, to conform to the requirements of sections 2853, 2854, 2855 and 2860 of the Revised Statutes.

United States v. Mosby,133 U. S. 273, affirmed and applied.

This action was brought against the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco to recover the value of ten packages of tea imported by the plaintiffs in August, 1889.

The complaint averred that the merchandise in question was entitled to free entry, but that, although plaintiffs had done everything the law required of them, the defendant, as collector of the port of San Francisco, had refused. to allow entry of the said merchandise or to deliver the same to the plaintiffs except on the condition that plaintiffs should deliver to defendant a consular invoice from the United States consul at Yokahama, Japan, declaring the cost or value of said merchandise

Page 142 U. S. 603

in Japan, or should give a bond in $100, conditioned for the delivery of such an invoice within the prescribed time. The complaint averred that there was no warrant of law for this action of the collector.

The defendant demurred to the complaint, but the court overruled the demurrer. The defendant thereupon said that the facts in the case were fully set forth in the complaint and that he could not answer further, whereupon judgment was entered for plaintiff as prayed for in his complaint. This writ of error was sued out to review that judgment.

Page 142 U. S. 604

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The judgment is reversed and cause remanded with a direction to sustain the demurrer and to dismiss the action upon the authority of United States v. Mosby,133 U. S. 273.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.