amined witnesses, and at which counsel were heard. December 10, 1879, the board reported, sustaining the higher valuation of these Nicholson Blue, A, goods, and the defendant made a reliquidation of the entry, April 20, 1880. In the mean time the goods were delivered June 6, 1879, in the special manner already mentioned. The duties were assessed at this higher valuation, and were paid under protest, and due appeal was taken to the secretary of the treasury, who oonfirmed the doings of the collector. The only point of protest and appeal now insisted on is that the reliquidation was made more than a year after the entry, the goods having been delivered and duties paid in the mean time, oontrary to St. 1874, c. 391, § 21, (18 St. 190.) To this contention there appear to be two answers: (1) In point of fact, the duties were not paid on these eight packages of goods until after the reliquidation. (2) If I am mistaken and the goods had been delivered, it was under a stipulation which treated them as still in the possession of the defendant, and bound the plaintiffs to abide the results of the reappraisement. The only result which it was important that they should abide, was the reliquidation which ensued, of course, when the value was increased by the board of'appraisers. My decision, therefore, is that the reliquidation of the eight pack. ages was regular and binding, and that the plaintiffs cannot recover. When the bill of exceptions has been filed and allowed, there will be judgment for the defendant.
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. New York. February 27,1883.)
PENALTy-PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER-VIOLATION 011' REVENUlIl LAW.
Whenever a vessel, or the owner or master of a vessel, has become subject to a penalty for a violation of the revenue laws of the United States, such shall be holden for the payment of such penalty, and may be seized and proceeded against summarily by libel to recover such penalty. . Section 3088, Rev. St.
The act of congress of February 8, 1881, provides that no vessel shall be sub. ject to seizure or forfeiture as above by reason of the penalty incurred under section 2873, Rev. St., unless it shall appear that the master, at the time of the alleged illegal act, was a consenting party or privy thereto.
Stewart L. Woodford, U. S. Atty., for appellant. Goodrich, Deady et Platt, for claimants and appellees.
LOIULLA.RD 11. WIGHT.
WALLACE, J. Upon the this courtfl'om}hedistrict c01,1rt, the libel to which the claimants' exceptions, were sustained in the court below has been amended 80 that it affirmatively concedes that v.essel "was used by the owners thereof as a common of .thei.! business as 'such carrier, and that neither the owner' p.or the, ma,ster was a, consenting, party or privy .to the illegal a,ct for which was. incurred." This ameI;ldment relieves the case from any mere technical question, a,nd the right to seize: anavroeeed it liI!lmmarily' by libel under section 3088, Rev. St.,to recover 11,' penalty incurred under sectiOn' 2873, althc;>ugh it was avesEjelused as a, QQmmOJ;l carrier, and ol,privy tp the ,neither the. ownernqrlna,ster'Ya,s;8, consenti.ng a,ct for which, the. penalty was incurred, is the bl10ad question presented. by .the claimants; exceptions. The acto! congress ,of Fekmary 8, 1881,.decla,res explicitly that a vessel so used shall not be fjubject to seizure or by force the provisiQns of tItle. 84 of the, Revised Statutes, it, shall appear that the owner or .master, at the time of· the alleged illegal act, was a consenting,plJ,rly ,or privy thereto; and section 2873 is one of the provisions Qf that title. '," . . Fully concurring in the conclusion reached by, the district and deeming that nothing can. be added to the convincing exposition which this act has received in the opini<;>D. delivered by him, his decision is adopted, and.the exceptions are sustained by this court.
and others v.
(OirlYUit Oourt, D. Maryland.
Where complainants were the first to adopt and use as a mark for their product tin tags variously colored, with the name of their brand and their own name stamped thereon and fastened upon the outside of their plugs of tobacco, although their patent therefor was declared void after surrender and reissue, they had the right to the device as a trade.mark, the public having come to know their tobacco by the tags of their peculiar color, shape, and size. '
Where defendants use tin tags which are a close imitation of the tags of complainallt.-:-so close an hnitation that they are calculated to mislead the retail purc1:taser; whether 'so intended or not,-it is an infringement of complaInants' trade-mark, and such usa may be enjoined.
In Equity. Motion for injunction.