Case ID: us-ct-cl_64/html/0643-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Campbell, Chief Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. S. ROSENTHAL COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. H-90.
    Decided February 20, 1928]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Special jurisdictional act of December 16,1926; loss of imported goods in appraisers’ stores. — The appraised value of plaintiffs case of silk, imported by it, lost in the appraisers’ stores and not returned, allowed by the court under the special jurisdictional act of December 16, 1926, together with duty paid thereon.
    
      The Reporter’s statement of the case:
    
      Mr. George W. DcdzeTL for the plaintiff.
    
      Mr. John E. Hoover, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant.
    
      The court made special findings of fact, ajs follows:
    I. The plaintiff, A. S. Rosenthal Company, is, and at all the times in question' in this case was, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and engaged in the city of New York in the business of importing and selling silk goods. It has, and at all the times herein mentioned had, a branch house at Yokohama, Japan.
    II. On December 16, 1926, there was approved an act of Congress entitled “An act for the relief of A. S. Rosenthal Company ” (44 State 1761), set forth at length in the petition. The plaintiff filed its petition March 7, 1927.
    III. In September, 1914, the plaintiff’s Japanese branch shipped to the plaintiff’s main office in New York forty-two cases of silk goods, the property of the plaintiff. This shipment arrived in New York City and was entered at the customhouse under the number customs entry 281870. In accordance with the usual practice six casqs were designated to be sent to the United States appraisers’ stores for appraisal, including case No. 2760. On October 27, 1914, the said case No. 2760 was received in the appraisers’ stores, was appraised at $1,246.00, marked to be returned to warehouse, and corded and sealed to await delivery to the warehouse. But the said case No. 2760 was never delivered to a truckman for delivery to the warehouse, was never received at the warehouse, nor returned to the plaintiff, nor is there any record to show that the said case No. 2760 ever left the custody of the United States appraiser. The public stores and warehouse were thoroughly searched by representative^ of the collector of customs at New York City, but no trace of the said case of silk No. 2760 has been found. The said case of silk was the property of the plaintiff and was lost while in the custody of the United States appraiser.
    IY. The appraised value of case of silk No. 2760 was $1,246.00, and there was assessed upon it duty in the sum of $560.70, which was paid by the plaintiff May 13, 1915. Plaintiff has suffered damages because of the loss and nondelivery of the silk in the sum of $1,246.00, and, because of duty paid, in the further sum of $560.70.
    
      The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover $1,806.70.
   Campbell, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This cause comes to the court under a special act conferring jurisdiction to hear and determine it. The act entitled “An act for the relief of A. S. Rosenthal Company,” approved December 16, 1926 (44 Stat. 1761), is set forth in the petition. The petition was filed in accordance with the provisions of the act and there is no question of the loss or the value of the case of silk. It went into the customhouse, was sent to and received in the appraisers’ stores, and duly appraised and marked to be returned to the warehouse. Beyond this it could not be traced. It was never delivered to plaintiff and after much search was never found. Under the terms of the jurisdictional act the plaintiff is entitled to be paid the damages resulting from the loss, as well as the duty which was paid upon the case of silk. Judgment will be awarded accordingly.

Moss, Judge; Graham, Judge; and Booth, Judge, concur.