FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL v. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 501 (1927)

U.S. Supreme Court

FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL v. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 501 (1927)

275 U.S. 501
No. 346.

FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL, petitioners,
v.
The UNITED STATES.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 28, 1927

Mr. Frederick W. Brooks, Jr., of New York City, for petitioners.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of the United States v. Fish, 268 U.S. 607, 612, 45 S. Ct. 616; the decision being that section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 962 (19 USCA 361) does not forbid the Customs Court to adopt rules of practice permitting the filing of such petitions before liquidation, that it has jurisdiction to consider petitions so filed, and its decision in this case granting the petition was not ineffective for want of jurisdiction.[ Finkelstein & Kommel v. United States 275 U.S. 501 (1927) ]


U.S. Supreme Court

FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL v. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 501 (1927)

275 U.S. 501
No. 346.

FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL, petitioners,
v.
The UNITED STATES.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 28, 1927

Mr. Frederick W. Brooks, Jr., of New York City, for petitioners.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of the United States v. Fish, 268 U.S. 607, 612, 45 S. Ct. 616; the decision being that section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 962 (19 USCA 361) does not forbid the Customs Court to adopt rules of practice permitting the filing of such petitions before liquidation, that it has jurisdiction to consider petitions so filed, and its decision in this case granting the petition was not ineffective for want of jurisdiction.[ Finkelstein & Kommel v. United States 275 U.S. 501 (1927) ]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.