Belcher v. Lawrason. be reversed, and the cause remitted, with directions to dismiss the libel. Mr. Justice WAYNE dissented. 1 CHARLES BELCHER et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. GEORGE LAWRASON, Collector, &c. 21 H. 251. CUSTOMS DUTIES. 1. The rule of appraisement of goods for duties imported by the manufacturer, prescribed by the acts of March 1, 1825, and July 14, 1832, is applicable to this case, notwithstanding the 16th section of the act of 1842. 2. But the 17th section of this latter act, which prescribes a penalty of fifty per cent. on the value so appraised, where the value as properly ascertained exceeds by ten per cent. the invoice value, is also applicable; because the subsequent act of 1846, which reduced this penalty to twenty per cent., where goods were purchased abroad, does not change the penalty as to goods imported by the manufacturer. WRIT of error to the circuit court for the eastern district of Louisiana. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Johnson, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Black, (attorney general,) and Mr. Hull, for defendants. [* 253 ] * Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. The suit was brought in the court below to recover back from the collector of the port of New Orleans an excess of duties paid by the plaintiffs. The goods upon which the duties were imposed were certain invoices of molasses and sugars, imported [254] from Matanzas, in the island of Cuba, in the year* 1852. They were imported by the manufacturer, and, on an appraisal of the value at the customs in New Orleans, the appraised value exceeded the invoice value upwards of ten per centum; whereupon, the collector imposed an additional duty of twenty per centum upon the appraised value, under the 8th section of the act of 1846, which was paid under protest. The court below held that this additional duty was improperly imposed, under the act of 30th July, 1846, as the 8th section of that act applied only to merchandise purchased in the foreign market, and did not embrace goods imported by the manufacturer. Belcher v. Lawrason. The court further held, that the several shipments were subject to the increased duty imposed under the 17th section of the act of August 30, 1842; and allowed the plaintiff to recover the excess over and beyond the amount chargeable under this last section. The principal question in the case is, whether or not the 17th section of the act of 1842 applies in the appraisal of merchandise imported by the manufacturer. The act of congress of March 1, 1823, recognized a distinction between goods imported which were purchased by the owner in the foreign market, and goods imported by the manufacturer himself, and prescribed separate and distinct oaths to be taken before the collector, (sec. 4.) That act also prescribed, as a rule for the appraisal of the goods, that to the actual cost if the same shall have been actually purchased, or the actual value if the same shall have been procured otherwise than by purchase, at the time and place when and where purchased, or otherwise procured, &c., shall be added all charges, &c., (sec. 5.) The act of congress of July 14, 1832, preserved the same distinction as in the act of 1823, in respect to goods imported which had been purchased, and goods procured. otherwise than by purchase, (sec. 15, secs. 7 and 8.) The 16th section of the act of 1842, like the 7th section of the act of 1832, prescribed the rule for the appraisal of goods imported which had been purchased in the foreign market, but omitted any provision in respect to goods imported which had been pro[255] cured otherwise than by purchase, leaving this class* of importations to the rule as prescribed in the acts of 1823, section 5, and 1832, section 15, which was not repealed, as no provision in that act was inconsistent with this rule. The repealing clause of that act is as follows: "And that all provisions of any former law inconsistent with this act shall be, and the same are hereby, repealed." The regulations, therefore, of the acts of 1823 and 1832, in respect to the time and place when and where goods, procured otherwise than by purchase, were left untouched by the 16th section of the act of 1842. Then, as it regards the 17th section. That is general, and applies to every class of importations-goods purchased, or procured otherwise than by purchase. It regulates the mode and manner of the appraisement. The appraisers may call before them, and examine upon oath, the owner, importer, consignee, or any other person, touching any matter deemed material in ascertaining the true market value or wholesale price of any merchandise imported; may call for letters, accounts, or invoices, relating to the valuation. Belcher v. Lawrason. It imposes a forfeiture of one hundred dollars for any neglect or refusal to attend before the appraisers and give evidence; makes false swearing before them perjury; and if the person be the owner, importer, or consignee, forfeits also the merchandise; requires that the evidence thus taken shall be filed in the collector's office, for future use; provides for an appeal, on the part of the owner, importer, or consignee, to merchant appraisers, in case of dissatisfaction at the appraisal by the permanent appraisers; makes the appraisal by the permanent or merchant appraisers, as the case may be, final and conclusive; and then closes with a proviso, that, in all cases where the actual value thus appraised and ascertained shall exceed, by ten per centum, the invoice value, then, in addition to the duty imposed by law, there shall be levied and collected on the goods fifty per centum of the duty upon the appraised value. (See, also, act of Congress, March 3, 1851.) As we have said, this section applies to all classes of importations, and regulates the mode and manner by which the appraisals shall be conducted by the appraisers, giving to the owner, importer, &c., the right of reappraisal by merchant ap*praisers, in case of dissatisfaction. It embraces not only [256] importations of goods purchased, referred to in the 16th section of the act, but importations procured otherwise than by purchase, as provided for in the acts of 1823 and 1832; and while this act of 1842 remained in full force, it subjected all importations to the penalty of fifty per centum in case of undervaluation. Then came the act of 30th July, 1846, the 8th section of which changed this penalty or increased duty, in case of undervaluation, to twenty per centum on the appraised value, as it respected goods imported which had been purchased, leaving the regulations in respect to goods imported by the manufacturers as they existed under the former laws. This act, like the act of 1842, repealed only such enactments of former laws as were repugnant to its provisions, (sec. 11.) The 8th section, not including the manufacturer, left the importation subject to the 17th section of the act of 1842. The act of 3d March, 1857, obliterates this distinction between goods purchased or procured otherwise than by purchase, and imposes upon the latter the twenty per centum upon the appraised value, for undervaluation, the same as in case of goods purchased. (Sess. Laws 1857, p. 199, Lit. & Bro. ed.) It has been argued that, admitting the goods were properly subject to the fifty per centum increased duty, under the 17th section. of the act of 1842, inasmuch as this was not imposed by the col Pemberton v. Lockett. lector, but the higher increased duty, under the 8th section of the act of 1846, the court below erred in charging the shipments in question with the former duty. But the answer to this objection is, that the law imposes the increased duty in case of undervaluation, and not the collector. It is true he is the agent of the government to collect it, as he is in collecting the ordinary rate of duties, but in no other sense or character. The law declares, in the case contemplated by the act, and which existed upon the proofs before the court, that, in addition to the ordinary duty, there shall be levied and collected, &c., fifty per centum, &c. No demand of the collector was [*257] necessary to create the liability. That *arose, as matter of law, upon the facts disclosed in the record, and it was the duty of the court to enforce it; and hence the excess over this increased duty, arising under the 17th section, constituted the just amount which the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Judgment of the court below affirmed. JOHN PEMBERTON, Liquidator, &c., Appellant, v. EDWARD LOCKETT and others. 21 II. 257. CONTRACT OF AGENT TO PROSECUTE A CLAIM. 1. A written contract, in general terms, by which three persons at Washington agreed to prosecute a claim for a person in New Orleans for half what might be obtained, was held to be limited to the prosecution in Washington before the government of the United States. 2. That consequently, when, by a treaty between this government and that of Great Britain, the matter was referred to arbitrators to sit in London, each government being represented by its own agent, the above contract was at an end. 3. Circumstances recited which go to show that both parties so treated it pending the award in London. APPEAL from the circuit court for the District of Columbia. The case is fully stated in the opinion. Mr. Brent, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. May, for appellant. Mr. Bradley and Mr. Hayes, for appellees. [* 262] * Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia. Pemberton v. Lockett. The bill was filed in the court below, by the respondents, against the appellant, Pemberton, liquidator of the Merchants' Insurance Company, in the city of New Orleans, representing the interest of that company, which was insolvent, for the purpose of establishing a title to certain moneys in the possession of the government, which had been received under the convention between the United States and Great Britain, of the 8th of February, 1853. The money had been awarded by the umpire, under that convention, to the company, which had been subrogated to the rights of one of the claimants for compensation against Great Britain, in the case of the brig Creole. The umpire allowed to the company $28,460. The complainants below set up, in their bill, a title to one-half of this fund, as the agents and attorneys of Pemberton in the prosecution of the claim. The right rests upon the following agreement, entered into between them and the defendant (Pemberton) at New Orleans, dated the 23d of December, 1851: "For and in consideration of services rendered, and to be rendered, by James G. Berret, Henry D. Johnson, aud E. Lockett, of Washington city, D. C., in the prosecution of our claims for the value of slaves freed at Nassau, N. P., which we had to pay for, we do hereby agree to allow to said Berret, Johnson, and Lockett, their heirs or assigns, one-half of any or all such sums of money, principal and interest, as may be recovered on account of our said losses, it being understood that the said Berret, Johnson, and Lockett, are to use their best exertions in the prosecution of said claim, and that no allowance whatever, as expenses or compensation for their services, is to be made by us to the said Berrett, Johnson, and Lockett, unless our said claim shall be allowed, in whole or in part. Witness our hand and seal, at New Orleans, this 23d day of December, in the year of our Lord 1851." The claims referred to in this agreement originated as far back as the year 1841, in consequence of the unwarrantable * interference of the public authorities at Nassau, in the [*263] island of New Providence, one of the Bahama Islands, belonging to Great Britain, and liberating a cargo of slaves, who were on a voyage from Virginia to New Orleans, and who had mutinied, overcome the officers, and carried the vessel into that port. The persons interested in the slaves, of which they were deprived by this interference, immediately appealed to their own government for redress. A correspondence was opened between this government and Great Britain on the subject, which continued down to |