Citation network
Barney Vs. Rickard
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 01, 1895
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 352 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Barney v. RickardSearch
-
U.S. 352 (1895) Barney v. RickardSearch
-
the money into the Treasury. The history of legislation on the subject is given by Mr. Justice Bradley in Barney v. WatsonSearch
-
or security therefor, and intended for further security if the duties overran the estimated amount. In Elliott v. SwartoutSearch
-
the duties were required to be paid in cash. At January term, 1845, it was held by this Court, in Cary v. CurtisSearch
-
This decision was referred to with approval in Curtis v. FiedlerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of action was restored, but the protest was required to be in writing, and not oral, as before allowed. Swartout v. GihonSearch
-
in case of entries for warehousing, by giving bond in double the amount of the duties as estimated, and in Tremlett v. AdamsSearch
-
Without the protest, the money paid was not illegally exacted, and, if not, could not be recovered back. Lawrence v. CaswellSearch
-
protests came too late if the duties were estimated according to law, and that this was distinctly ruled in Barney v. WatsonSearch
-
paid under duress at the later date, when possession of the goods had already been surrendered. Hence, in Crocker v. RedfieldSearch
-
Mr. Justice Nelson participated in the decision of Marriott v. BruneSearch
-
in which it is supposed a contrary view was indicated. That case was decided by Chief Justice Taney on circuit. Brune v. MarriottSearch
-
the reason given, in view of the language Page 157 U. S. 364 of the statute, and the decisions in Cary v. CurtisSearch
-
and Curtis v. FiedlerSearch
-
a very different thing from carrying it back to the previous payment, when there was no complaint. In Moke v. BarneySearch
-
the notice of dissatisfaction could not be given until the ground for dissatisfaction was disclosed. In Erskine v. VanSearch
-
could be had if proper notice of dissatisfaction was given at the proper time, and, as already remarked, in Brune v. MarriottSearch
-
payment of so much of the duties as was subsequently disputed was really made under misapprehension of fact. In Barney v. WatsonSearch
-
the amount assessed illegally which had been included in the prior payment. Page 157 U. S. 365 In Davies v. MillerSearch
-
liquidation, but whether it could be made after payment was not a question presented for consideration, and Marriott v. BruneSearch
-
on as laying down a general rule establishing the validity of prospective protests, as it was in Schell's Executors v. FaucheSearch
-
We think this results from the language of the statutes, the facts disclosed by the record, and the decision in Barney v. WatsonSearch
-
then, it was not paid in order to get possession of the goods. See, under subsequent statutes, United States v. SchlesingerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Barney v. RickardSearch
-
In Elliott v. SwartoutSearch
-
Curtis v. FiedlerSearch
-
Swartout v. GihonSearch
-
Tremlett v. AdamsSearch
-
Crocker v. RedfieldSearch
-
of Marriott v. BruneSearch
-
Brune v. MarriottSearch
-
In Moke v. BarneySearch
-
In Erskine v. VanSearch
-
In Barney v. WatsonSearch
-
In Davies v. MillerSearch
-
and Marriott v. BruneSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial