Case ID: f_64/html/0576-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ALDRICH, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re CERTAIN MERCHANDISE.
    (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.
    November 23, 1894.)
    No. 188.
    Appeal — Review under Customs Administrative Act — Petition—Dismissal.
    Though the customs administrative act of 1890 (section 15), providing foí-an appeal, requires security for costs on the original application for review by the importer, and the practice of the court conforms thereto, an application filed when the statute was new, and when there was no express rule of court defining what the security should be, and prosecuted in good faith by counsel, who did not understand that the statute required security at the outset, will not be dismissed because security was not given when the application was made, if the ordinary cost bond in the sum of $50 is filed within the time named in the ruling on the motion to dismiss.
    Petition by Schoellopf, Hartford & Maclagan, Limited, for review under the customs administrative act of 1890. Heard on motion by the government to dismiss.
    Motion denied on conditions.
    Josiah P. Tucker, for petitioner.
    Wm. G-. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   ALDRICH, District Judge.

This is a petition by the importer for review under what is known as the “Customs Administrative Act of 1890,” and there is no security for costs. Section 15, providing for review and appeal, requires that “on such original application and on any such appeal security for damages and costs shall be given as in the case of other appeals in which the Í 'nited Stales is a party.” The government moves io dismiss on the ground that the statute as to security for damages and costs has not been complied with, but insists only upon the provision as to security for costs. Unquestionably, the statute requires security for costs to be furnished with the original application. We understand the practice in the Second circuit conforms to this idea, in view of the fads.however. that the statute was compara lively new at the time this ped-ilón was filed, that there was no express rule of court on the subject defining what the security should lie, and that counsel by affidavit establishes that the petition is being prosecuted in good faith, and that the statute was not understood by him as requiring security at the outset, I am disposed not to grant the motion to dismiss, except: upon the following condition: The petition will be dismissed unless the petitioner, on or before December 2, 189-1, files with the clerk the ordinary cost bond in the sum of $50. And leave is granted to the petitioner to file such security within such time, as of the date of filing the original application. The clerk will enter the same order in Nos. 373, 390, 236, 273, and 290.