HARTRANFT
v.
WINTERS
Mr. Justice Blatchford delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action by Anton Winters, brought in a state court of Pennsylvania and removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the collector of customs for the District of'Philadelphia. . The proceedings in it, and the questions arising, are in all respects the same as those in the case of Hartranft v. Wiegmann, just decided, the only difference being that in this case there were no shells called “green snails” or “mottoes” or “ Turk’s caps ” or “ magpies ” or “ trocus,” and that there were shells called “rose murex,” “motto cowries,” “banded snails,” “Japan ears,” “turbo shells,” “red ears,” and “pearl snails.”
The same conclusion is arrived at as in the Wiegmann case, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Broadway Nat. Bank of Denver v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 51 F.2d 703 (10th Cir. 1931)…taxes paid beyond what should have been levied upon a just valuation. The courts cannot, in such cases, take upon themselves the functions of a revising or equalizing board.” This was reaffirmed in Williams v. Supervisors of Albany, 122 U. S. 155, 7 S. Ct. 1244, 30 L. Ed. 1088. Later the principle was again announced in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Missouri ex rel. Gottlieb, 190 U. S. 412, 425 et seq., 23 S. Ct. 730, 47 L. Ed. 1116. See, also, Balfour v. City of Portland (C. C.) 28 F. 738; Raleigh v. Sal…