Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Davies Vs. Miller

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 01, 1889

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

36 entries 4 linked 32 unlinked
Show
  1. Cary Vs. Curtis US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1845
  2. Elliott Vs. Swartwout US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1836
  3. Barney Vs. Watson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  4. United States Vs. Schlesinger US Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1887
  5. U.S. 284 (1889) U.S. Supreme Court Davies v. Miller
    Search
  6. U.S. 284 (1889) Davies v. Miller
    Search
  7. his goods might recover them back from the collector in an action of assumpsit for money had and received. Elliott v. Swartwout
    Search
  8. Brune v. Marriott
    Search
  9. Taney 132, 144. And his decision was affirmed by the judgment of this Court. Marriott v. Brune
    Search
  10. How. 619. That judgment, though criticized in Warren v. Peaslee
    Search
  11. regarded and acted on as laying down a general rule establishing the validity of prospective protests. Steegman v. Maxwell
    Search
  12. Hutton v. Schell
    Search
  13. Blatchford 48, 55, and Fowler v. Redfield
    Search
  14. Wetter v. Schell
    Search
  15. Blatchford 193, 196, and Chouteau v. Redfield
    Search
  16. be governed by the act of 1845, requiring the protest to be filed at or before the time of paying the duties. Barney v. Watson
    Search
  17. after the entry of the goods, as in the act of 1857, evidently for the reason stated by MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY in Barney v. Watson
    Search
  18. given before the entry thereof and precludes a prospective protest covering future entries or importations. Ullman v. Murphy
    Search
  19. of Judge Shipman in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York in October, 1878, in the case of Keyser v. Arthur
    Search
  20. Our conclusion also accords with decisions of state courts expounding similar words in other statutes. Young v. The
    Search
  21. Atherton v. Corliss
    Search
  22. Levert v. Read
    Search
  23. before them, might seem to support the opposite conclusion, especially the language of Chief Justice Waite in Watt v. United
    Search
  24. States, 15 Blatchford 29, decided July 1, 1878, and that of Mr. Justice Strong in Westray v. United
    Search
  25. possession of the goods, but were sued for by the United States, was overruled, with his concurrence, in United States v. Schlesinger
    Search
  26. U.S. Supreme Court Davies v. Miller
    Search
  27. Court. Marriott v. Brune
    Search
  28. Warren v. Peaslee
    Search
  29. Steegman v. Maxwell
    Search
  30. and Fowler v. Redfield
    Search
  31. and Chouteau v. Redfield
    Search
  32. Ullman v. Murphy
    Search
  33. of Keyser v. Arthur
    Search
  34. Young v. The
    Search
  35. Watt v. United
    Search
  36. Westray v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial