787 pellant's infringement. Our decree, wasperbaps too broad, and should be modified. : . . . . The ordet"ofthe court is that the motion to vacate the proceedings in this cause, and to dismiss the appeal for want of be'denied; that our former decree, remanding the cause, with directions to dismiss the bill, with costs, be, and the same is, modified so as to direct the cause to be remanded to the circuit court, with instructions to dissolve and dismiss the injunction granted in said court; and that apveliee pay the COl:lts, and that the rehearing apvlied for be deuied. >
COULLIETTEIt .al. 11. THOMASON It (Circuit Court of
ale
FV'th Circuit. IUDe .. 1m) No. 18.
.APPlIn.. 90 CrnCUlT Cot1RT OJ' APP1!ALS-TrMB 0J'Tu:T1fG-DJSHJS84L.
.f .ibedecree .mua' be diswiued, ,under JudwilU'J Ac' 18\11,
An appeal taken to the circuit court of appeals more than sis months aftel'ntr7 S11.
Appeal' from the Circuit COurt of the United States for the Western District of Louisiana. In Equity. Bill by J. Sidney COulliette and others against Mrs. Mary H. Thomason and L. B. Thomason to recover' certain lands and for an accounting. Decree rejecting complainants' demands, and title in defendant Mary H. ThomasQD,.as against them. Complainants appeal. Appeal dismissed. Bo(dner« Ln/flJcin, for appellants. F'ranlt. N. Btl-tier, for appellees. Before PAR.Q.EJ!land !IlCCOluuCK, Circuit Judges, and Loco:, District Judge· . PARDEE, Circuit Judge. appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case because no assignment of errors was filed in the court below,or forms part of the transcript of record. The failure to make an assignment of errors, under rule 11 of the rules of this court, is sufficient ground to refuse to hear counsel, but not, perhaps, in all cases sufIicient to dismiss the appeal. In this case, however, we find, not only of the assignment of errors, but a .lailure to file briefs, and that an examination of the. record does not show any plain error ill the decree appealed from ·. .And we nolice in the record that the decrtle from in the court below was rendered on the 11 th day of that the motion and oruer./or a}JPenl to this court were not made nor granted until September 10, 1891, more than six months alter the date oLthe entry of the decree appealed from; that the order allowing the appeal made the. same returnable more than 30 days after the date thereof; and. that the citation was made returnable more than 30 1la'yl:Jt,berea.fter. Thtl Jact aloue that the apveal was not taken until
788 ," ,0"",
FtiI>EML ',_/:>;" ," ,", "
vol.Sh. .,
more than SIX months after the entry of the decree appealed from (section 11 of act of 1&91.) theappeai to be dismissed, it is ,SO, orderl'ld. .
in 1.
1'6
P
VANT
et ale
(CircuU Court, S. D. New York. May 18, 1892.) BOARD OJ!' ApPRAISERS-VALUATION-REVIEW llT CIRCUIT COURT-PRACTICE.
2.
SAME.
pel cent. above the value declared in the importer's entry, and the additional dutoies prOVided for in sectio11; 7,Ofthe same act thereupon accruedaJ\d were exacted by the collector, no appeal from or review of the decision of the collector in assessing such additional 411ties, for under sl!id act, , ' ' ,
§ 13, on reappraisement appraised the value of imported merchandise more than 10
Where a board of three general appraisers, acting under Act Congo June 10, 1890,
.,!Y,."
"
.
Whether or not any relief can be 'secured by an importer where there has been fundamental error in fixing the value, none is to be found under the act of June 10, 1890, by appeal or reviewihthe circuit c o u r t . ' , ' An appeal to Of rev(ew"by the clt'c1iit conrt uuder 15 of said act I's restricted to questions of law and fact involved in the decisions of the appraisers re.. "IlPl;lCt,{llg the classifl,cation of m,erchl1ndlse and the duty imposed thereon . ""tinder such classification,' ,.,. ., , , ' , ' '
Motion todjsmiss appeal f()r want of jurisdiction. I ,I' , : ., " )
Grant-
therebf was advanced"by the appraisedo an amount exceeding by more than 10 per cent. the value of the same as declared by the importers upon entry. Objection was made by the importers, and a reappraiseby oneof thegeneralappraisers, and' on further objectionof:theimporters the matter- was sent t<> the board oftbree genera,l appraisers, under the provisions of section 13 of the customs administrative of June 10,1890, who examined and decided the case thus submitted, dtldsustaihed the increased valuation ()fthe merchandise. The collector ()f toe port of New Yotk thereupon levied and assess.ed duty thereon at 50 percent. ad valdrem under paragraph 458 of the tariff act of October I, 1890, and also, in addition thereto, (by reason of the tion,) a fnrtherstlm equal to2 per cent. of the total appraised value for each tper cent. that such nppraised value exceeded the value declared in the entry, under and by Virtue of the provisions of section 7 of the customs administrative 'act of June 10, The importers served a prot'est upon the collector agaillsthis assesstnent of duty for all excess above 50 per cent., and up()n any greater value than the entered value, claiDJ.ing that no legal reappraisement had been made in accordance with the act ofJune 10, 1890ithatthe boatd of appraisers had declined to receive or entertain evidence offered by the importer as to the true market value of the goodsi determihedthe case upon values given by special agents of the treasurYitook afid acted upon evidence of persons not ex. perts, who had no personal knowledge oithe value of gloves in the markets
,JiOnan importation 'of leatherg!oves by Passavant& Co, the value