Nathan Clifford

Name: Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court
Author: Nathan Clifford

Summary

“Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Nathan Clifford. It explores elements such as warehouse, consumption and collector.

Quotes from Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court (Nathan Clifford)

Nathan Clifford, Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court

“ Acts of Congress of the kind are often very complex in their provisions, in order to enable those charged with their execution to protect the treasury against the constant attempts of importers to evade the payment of new duties or increased taxation. New regulations often become necessary to enable the officers of the customs to defeat such designs; and the rule is, that in such cases there ought to be a manifest and irreconcilable repugnancy to warrant the conclusion that the old law is abrogated, or that the new law was intended to supersede the antecedent provision. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court

“ Concede the theory of the plaintiffs to be correct, and it would follow that the sugars imported by the plaintiffs might remain in the public warehouse for an indefinite period without paying the liquidated duties, and without subjecting the importer, owner, or consignee to any additional charge when he should withdraw the same for consumption. Congress, it is believed, never intended that any such result should follow, as it would be contrary to the policy of the government, as shown in all the acts of Congress establishing and regulating the warehousing system. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court

“ Merchandise, if duly imported, with certain exceptions not necessary to be noticed, may be entered for warehousing without paying the duties at the time of the entry, in which event the goods are delivered into the possession of the collector, and are deposited, at the option of the owner, importer, consignee, or agent, at his expense, in any public warehouse or other place provided by law for the storage of such property. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court

“ Authorities to show that there must be a positive repugnancy between the provisions of the new law and the old, to work a repeal of the old law by implication, and that even then the old law is only repealed to the extent of the repugnancy, are very numerous and decisive. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court

“ Suppose the new act applies to the case before the court, which is not admitted, still it is clear that it would not supersede the defence arising under the prior act, as four months remained during which the plaintiff might have withdrawn the goods for consumption without being subjected to any additional duty under the prior act, and for the further reason, that the prior act is not repealed by the new act under which the plaintiffs claim, nor is the provision of the new act repugnant to that of the prior act. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court

“ Responsive to that theory of the defence, the plaintiffs insist that the first clause of the twenty-sixth section of the act of the 14th of July, 1870, 16 Stat. 269, supersedes the provision invoked by the defendant, and that it gave to them the right to withdraw the sugars for consumption without paying any thing except the original duties and charges, as finally liquidated and noted in the withdrawal entry. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford, Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court

“ That the court erred in refusing to charge the jury that, if they found that the sugars were not above No. 7, Dutch standard, in color, and were in public warehouse on Dec. 31, 1870, and so continued until March 20, 1871, and were on that day entered to be withdrawn for consumption, the sugars were not subject to any other duty than at the rate of 1 3/4 cents per pound. 2. That the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that, if they found the facts to be as stated in the preceding assignment of error, the collector illegally exacted the additional duty of ten per cent. 3. ”

Nathan Clifford

Summary

Quotes from Fabbri v. Murphy — Opinion of the Court (Nathan Clifford)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature