Hartranft v. Winters, 121 U.S. 616 (1887)

U.S. Supreme Court

Hartranft v. Winters, 121 U.S. 616 (1887)

Hartranft v. Winters

Argued April 20-21, 1887

Decided May 2, 1887

121 U.S. 616

Syllabus

This case is affirmed on the authority of Hartranft v. Wiegmann, ante, 121 U. S. 609.

This was an action to recover back duties alleged to have been illegally exacted. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant sued out this writ of error.

U.S. Supreme Court

Hartranft v. Winters, 121 U.S. 616 (1887)

Hartranft v. Winters

Argued April 20-21, 1887

Decided May 2, 1887

121 U.S. 616

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Syllabus

This case is affirmed on the authority of Hartranft v. Wiegmann, ante, 121 U. S. 609.

This was an action to recover back duties alleged to have been illegally exacted. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant sued out this writ of error.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action by Anton Winters, brought in a state court of Pennsylvania and removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the Collector of Customs for the District of Philadelphia. The proceedings in it, and the questions arising, are in all respects the same as those in the case of Hartranft v. Wiegmann, just decided, the only difference being that in this case there were no shells called "green snails" or "mottoes" or "Turk's caps" or "magpies" or "trocus," and that there were

Page 121 U. S. 617

shells called "rose murex," "motto cowries," "banded snails," "Japan ears," "turbo shells," "red ears," and "pearl snails."

The same conclusion is arrived at as in the Wiegmann case, and the judgment of the circuit court is

Affirmed.