Case ID: us-ct-cl_18/html/0762-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Miller.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE W. CAMPBELL AND GEORGE A. THAYER v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (107 U. S. R. See opinion of Ct. of Cls., 12 C. Cls. R., 470.)
    The claimant having imported a lot of linseed, upon which he paid the duty, transferred it to his warehouse, where, without intermixture with any other linseed, he manufactured it into oil and cake. Being about to export said cake, he made application to the collector for entry for that x>urpose, and offered to give bond and to comply with the provisions of the Act of August 5,1861, § 4, now Eevised Statutes, § 3019.
    The collector, acting under instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, refused to accept the claimant’s entry and bond or perform any act ‘ under said section in relation thereto.
    The seed was duly exported, and no part was relanded in the United States.
    The claimant sued for the amount of drawback allowed by statute.
    The Court of Claims held that it had no jurisdiction, on the ground that the allowance of drawback was a matter wholly within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury. The claimant appealed. The case appealed from is noted in 15 C. Cls. E., 63)3, without a statement of facts or an opinion. It is similar to the case reported in 12 C. Cls. E., 470.
    Held by the Supreme Court:
    I. The Court of Claims has jurisdiction of the caso because it is founded on a law of Congress, and the facts found raise an implied contract that the United States will refund to the importer the amount he paid to the Government.
    
      II. The officers of the customs, including the Secretary, are not, in regard to this law, created a special tribunal to ascertain and decide conclusively upon the right to drawback. Their function is entirely ministerial. They are authorized to pass upon no question essential to the claimant’s right so as to conclude him in a court of competent jurisdiction.
    Note. — The court in its opinion makes no reference to the case of Nicoll et al. (7 Wall., 122, and 7 C. Cls. R., 36), the doctrines of which, as stated in the opinion in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims in revenue cases, are in part if not wholly overruled by it:
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Miller.