121 U.S. 616 - Hartranft v. Winters — 121 U.S. 616

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2005

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1error to the circuit court of the united states for the EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

¶2This case is affirmed on the authority of Hartranft v. Wiegmann, ante, 609.

¶3This was an action to recover back duties alleged to have been illegally exacted. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant sued out this writ of error.

¶4Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff in error.

¶5Mr. Frank P. Prichmd for defendant in error.

¶6Mr. Justice Blatchford

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.

¶8This 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 *617shells called “rose murex,” “motto cowries,” “banded snails,” “Japan ears,” “turbo shells,” “red ears,” and “pearl snails.”

¶9The same conclusion is arrived at as in the Wiegmann case, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is

¶10Affirmed.