General
Dieckerhoff and others v. Robertson
32 F. 758·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1887
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
Dieckerhoff and others v. Robertson.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
November 7, 1887.)
Customs Duties — Excess of — Action to Recover — Amendment of Bill 'of Particulars.
A motion, in an action to recover for excessive duties, to amend the bill of particulars by increasing the amount claimed therein for excess of duty, will he denied, where it appears that the mistake in making up the original statement was entirely that of the plaintiif’s agent or broker, and was in no way induced by any misinformation furnished at the custom-house.
Action to Recover Excess of Duties Paid under Protest. On motion to amend bill of particulars.
A. P. Ketchum, for complainant.
Stephen A. Walker, U. S. Atty., and Win. Wickham Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant.
[MAJORITY — Lacombe, J.]
Lacombe, J.
In this case plaintiffs ask to amend the bill of particulars by increasing the amount claimed therein for excess of duty. The mistake in making up the original statement, however, appears to have been entirely that of plaintiffs’ agent or broker, and in no way induced by any misinformation furnished at the custom-house. The motion is denied. See memoranda in Castner v. Magone, ante, 578, and Sherman v. Hedden, ante, 756, (filed November 7, 1887.)