Case Name: Samuel Swartwout, Plaintiff in error, v. John Gihon et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1845-01
Citations: 3 How. 110
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Swartwout, Plaintiff in error, v. John Gihon et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 110–110

Head Matter:
Samuel Swartwout, Plaintiff in error, v. John Gihon et al.
When ’ an importer tneans to contest the payment of duties, it is not necessary-for him to give a written notice thereof to the collector.
The question of notice is-a fact for the jury, and it makes no difference, far the purposes for which it is required, whether it is written or verbal.
.The facts in this case are sufficiently set forth; in the following opinion.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case comes before the court upon a writ of érror directed to the Circuit Court for the southern district of New York. _ The action was brought by the defendants ijx error against the plaintiff to recover back certain sums of money paid to him as duties on brown linens, imported into New York in 1.836, of which port he was at that time the collector. Some of these duties were paid under protest in writing, and some without any written protest or notice, but evidence was offered for the purpose of (showing thalthe defendants in error verbally -notifie_d the collector- that the duties charged on all of these goods would be contested. The goods in question- were unbleached linens, and ha'd been charged.with duty as-coloured; and the jury found a verdict against the.colljéctor for the amount claimed.
At the trial, the court instructed the jury that a written notice,Of •the objections to pay the- duties was not necessary, and that it was sufficient if a verbal notice was brought home to the collector; but that the jury-must be. satisfied that such notice was brought home to him; To .this direction the plaintiff in error /excepted; and it is upon this point only that the case comes before this .court.
The only, object of the notice' was to warn the collector that the party meant, to hold him personally responsible for the -money, whether he paid it over or not. It was. a question for the. jury to decide whether notice was or was not given; -and.it could make no difference, for the purposes for-which it 'was .requited, whether it was written or verbal.- We think the charge óf the court -was clearly right, and the judginent is therefore- affirmed.