Case ID: us-ct-cl_25/html/0073-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DNvis, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. ELWELL GOLDSBOROUGH v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 16369.
    Decided December 9, 1889.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The consul at Amoy turns into the Treasury $11,331 received as fees for certifying invoices. The testimony states that the “majority of these” were for goods non-dutiable, but does not show the amount. He also pays into the Treasury fees collected for shipping seamen on foreign-built vessels sailing under the American flag.
    I. Where fees collected by a consul were in part on dutiable and in part on non-dutiable goods, and he seeks to recover the latter, it is not sufficient for him to show by oral testimony that a majority of the invoices certified were for non-dutiable goods.
    II. A consul in China is entitled to fees collected for shipping and discharging seamen on foreign-built vessels sailing under the American flag.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Plaintiff was consul of the United States at Amoy, China, from July 20, 1879, to September 2, 1885, and remained at his post during that time, when he returned to the United States on the 7th day of November, 1885.
    II. During his term as said consul plaintiff turned into the Treasury of the United States the sum of $11,331 on account of invoices certified by him. The vast majority of these fees was- collected by plaintiff from invoices certified by him for goods imported into the United States free of duty, but it is not possible to definitely determine from the proof the amount so collected by him on this account and turned into the Treasury, as some of the invoices'certified by him — how many is not shown — were for goods subject to duty in theUnited States.
    III. Plaintiff collected, credited to the Government, and paid into the Treasury $324.84 on account of fees collected for shipping and discharging seamen on foreign-built vessels sailing on the China coast under the United States flag.
    
      Mr. W. Willoughby for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Heber J. May (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Cotton) for the defendants.
   DNvis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, while consul at Amoy, collected fees to a large amount for certifying invoices of goods not dutiable in the United States, and the fees so collected by him he turned into the Treasury, and now seeks to recover back. The case of Mosby v. The United States is authority for such a recovery were the facts proved. Plaintiff!, however, has only been able to show that “the vast majority” of invoices certified by him was for non-dutiable goods, admitting that some (how many is uncertain) of the invoices were for dutiable goods. The court is, therefore, left in uncertainty as to the sum which should be awarded plaintiff, and must dismiss this branch of the claim.

Plaintiff also seeks to recover the amount of certain fees collected by him and turned into the Treasury for shipping and discharging seamen on foreign-built vessels carrying the flag of the United States. Upon the authority of Mosby v. The United States this claim is allowed.

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $324.84.