Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Ex parte The United States, in the matter of the United States, plaintiffs v. Anson G. Phelps, Elisha Peck and William E. Dodge, 1834 — 33 U.S. 700 · caselaw · US
General
Ex parte The United States, in the matter of the United States, plaintiffs v. Anson G. Phelps, Elisha Peck and William E. Dodge
33 U.S. 7008 Pet. 700·Supreme Court of the United States·1834
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Ex parte The United States, in the matter of the United States, plaintiffs v. Anson G. Phelps, Elisha Peck and William E. Dodge.
Mr Butler, attorney-general of the United States,
Mr Maxwell, contra,
[MAJORITY — Mr Chief Justice Marshall.]
Mr Chief Justice Marshall.
The court are unanimous in refusing the motion. The object of the section in the duty law is to secure the prompt collection of duties, indisputably ascertained. When there are errors in calculating the duties, and they are alleged on affidavits, the delay of one term is allowed. And where there is a real defence, an opportunity to obtain evidence by a continuance, according to the circumstances of the case, must be given. There cannot be a case of this description where the opportunity should be denied.
Mandamus refused, and the motion overruled.