General
United States v. Harper & Co.
3 Ct. Cust. 119·United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·1912
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
United States v. Harper & Co.
(No. 482).
Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that more than one year had elapsed since the date of the judgment sought to be reviewed.
United States Court of Customs Appeals,
February 12, 1912.
D. Frank Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General (Frank L. Lawrence, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States.
Stanley Jackson (Charles R. Lean of counsel) for appellees.
Reported T. D. 32367 (22 Treas. Dec., 542).
[MAJORITY]
Held, That an order entered after hearing, that “the petition herein be, and hereby is, dismissed, and that findings and decision be filed and judgment thereon entered herein accordingly,” was not, under the California practice, final so as to preclude and did not preclude appeal from a judgment later entered. The first order clearly contemplated a future finding of facts and judgment thereon.
Motion denied February 12, 1912.