void, because the merchant appraiser was sworn by the official appraiser. id. 67. Where goods were invoiced and entered at their market value at the time of their purchase, and their value had increased between that time and the time of their exportation, and, under instructions from the Treasury Department, they were appraised at their value at the time of their exportation, and duties were assessed on that valuation, and also an additional duty of 50 per cent., under § 17 of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 564), and were paid under a protest, "against the demand of the duties charged upon the merchandise specified in the within entry," which said: "The difference between the sum so charged and what ought to have been levied upon the prices mentioned in the invoice, we shall claim to recover back, and we also protest against the penalty of 50 per cent. in addition to the duties charged, because the invoice was fair, and the said last mentioned sum is levied without the due process of law:" Held, that, under such protest, it could not be objected that the Collector did not, under § 17 of said Act of August 30th, 1842, order a re-appraisement, or that one of the examiners was partial and hostile to the importer. Maillard v. Lawrence, 378 68. Held, also, that, as the Treasury instructions were given to the appraisers by the Collector, to govern them in making the valuation as of the time of exportation, this fact, in connection with the protest, made the protest sufficient, under the Act of February 26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727), to raise the objection that the goods were erroneously valued by the appraisers as of the time of their exportation, instead of as of the time of their purchase. id. 69. Held, also, that under the said Act of August 30th, 1842, the valuation of the goods as of the time of their exportation, instead of as of the time of their purchase, was illegal. id. 70. Held, also, that the 50 per cent. penalty could be recovered back, as there was a protest against its exac 71. Where a protest, by a consignee of goods, claimed that they were invoiced at their fair market value, and also protested against the payment of a penalty for undervaluation, and described the goods thus-" these goods consigned to me by the manufacturer thereof, maintaining that they are not liable to a penalty under the laws, for the reasons stated "-Held, that the consignee could not, under such protest, prove that the goods were owned and imported by the manufacturer, and so not liable to the penalty. Warburg v. Maxwell, 382 72. Where, on an entry of goods, the importer offered to write up the entry, by adding thereto a sum which would make it equal to what the Custom-House considered to be the market value of the goods at the time of exportation, and the Collector refused to permit such addition to be made, because the importer and owner was the manufacturer of the goods, and was not authorized by § 8 of the Act of July 30th, 1846, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 43), to add to his invoice, and imposed a penal duty on the goods, on appraisement, for their undervaluation: Held, that the Collector, having refused to allow the importer to add, on his entry, to the invoice prices, because he was the manufacturer of the goods, could not then impose a penal duty on the goods, as having been purchased in the foreign market. Crowley v. Maxwell, 383 duty of 30 per cent. ad valorem, under schedule C to said Act, as being within the terms "manufactures, articles, vessels and wares of glass, or of which glass shall be a compo nent material, not otherwise provided for." Roosevelt v. Maxwell, 391 75. In ascertaining the meaning of terms used in a tariff Act, recourse is had to their meaning, according to the commercial understanding of the terms in our markets at the time the Act was passed; and, where it does not appear from the Act itself, that some other certain fixed meaning is intended by the terms used, they are to be understood according to the commercial meaning of the terms in our markets at the time the Act was passed; but, where it does appear by the Act itself, that a particular meaning was intended by the terms used, that particular meaning must be adopted, in giving a construction to the Act, whatever the commercial meaning of the terms may have been. id. 76. It is not to be presumed that Congress, when it substitutes the provisions of one tariff Act for those of another, intends to use terms in a sense different from that in which they were used in the prior Act. id. 77. Under the Act of March 3d, 1843, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 625), the value of the Bremen thaler of 72 grotes, at the Custom-House, is fixed at 71 cents; and, if a Collector, in assessing duties on an invoice and entry made out in Bremen thalers, computes the thaler at a higher rate than 71 cents, the excess of duties paid in consequence of such computation, may, if paid under a proper protest, be recovered back. id. gauge and 2 per cent. for leakage claimed on this entry: Held, that these protests were sufficient, under the Act of February 26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727). Schuchardt v. Lawrence, 397 79. The duty on brandies and other liquors is, under the decision in Lawrence v. Caswell, (13 How., 488), to be assessed on the actual quantity which arrives in the United States, and no duty is to be paid on what leaks out during the voyage. id. 80. Where, on an importation of copper from Chili, the invoice and entry were made out in dollars, in the currency of Chili, and were accompanied by a consular certificate, which showed that the Chili dollar was worth but ninety cents in United States currency, but the Collector assessed duties on the invoice as made out, without allowing for the depreciation: Held, that the depreciation should have been allowed for, and that the excess of duties paid could be recovered back. Alsop v. Maxwell, 399 82. Where a protest against the payment of duties, and of a penalty for undervaluation, after appraisement and re-appraisement, on an invoice of needles, only claimed that the invoice stated the fair value of the needles when procured abroad, and neither the protest, nor the invoice, nor the entry, stated when the needles were procured, or that they had been purchased, and the appraisements were based on the value of the needles when shipped, and exceeded the invoice value: Held, that, although the needles were procured by purchase some time before they were shipped, and the price paid for them was the value stated in the invoice, and was their fair market value abroad at the time of their purchase, yet, under the protest, the importer could not claim that the needles. were procured at any other period than the date of their shipment, and the appraisements were regular.. Crowley v. Maxwell, 401 83. Under the 16th section of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 563), a Collector is justified in taking the time of the shipment from abroad of goods as the time of their purchase, unless he is notified, by the entry, or invoice, or protest, or in some other way, that some other time was the time of their purchase, and should be taken as the time for their appraisal. id. 84. The cases of Pierson v. Maxwell, (2 Blatchf. C. C. R., 507), Cornett v. Lawrence, (Id., 512), Focke v. Lawrence, (Id., 508), and Thomson v. Maxwell, (Id., 385), cited and approved. id 85. A protest which merely claims that an appraisement was illegal, but does not state in what the illegality consisted, is insufficient, under the Act of February 26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727). id. → 86. In an action to recover back duties, no exception can be taken to an appraisement of goods, which does not appear on the face of it, unless the exception is distinctly and specifically pointed out in a protest, as required by the Act of February 26th, 1845, (5 Ú. S. Stat. at Large, 727). Schmaire v. Maxwell, 408 89. Under the 8th section of the Act of July 30th, 1846, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 43), an importer has a right to make, in his entry, an addition to the value of goods as contained in his invoice; but the additional duty or penalty of 20 per cent., imposed by that section, attaches, if the ap praised value of the goods exceeds, by 10 per cent., the value in the entry, whether such addition has been made by the importer or not. id. 90. Under the 16th and 17th sections 92. If, on an appeal from an appraisal, a Collector illegally refuses to order a re-appraisal, still the appraisal is not set aside by the appeal, and is conclusive till a re-appraisal is in fact made; and the only remedy of the importer is an action against the Collector for his breach of duty. id. 93. Where the consignee of a quantity of corks, imported from France, presented, on their entry, an invoice and entry, both of which were erroneous through mistake, and not through fraud, and immediately discovered the error, and notified the Collector of it, and sent to France for a correct invoice, and delivered it to the Collector, and requested permission to correct the error, which was refused, and the Collector imposed duties on the value as stated in the true invoice, and a penalty for undervaluation, without any appraisal of the goods: Held, that the penalty was illegally imposed, and could be recovered back. Carnes v. Maxwell, 420 94. The case of Howland v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 146), cited and approved. id. 95. Where it is not shown by either the invoice, the entry, or the protest, that the goods imported were purchased, it is lawful for the Collector to have them appraised at their value abroad at the time of their shipment, and to collect duties on such value, ENDORSEMENT. See CORPORATION, 1, 2. ENTRY. See DUTIES, 4, 6, 43, 47, 57, 58, 60, 61, 97. Where, on an entry of goods by 98. The distinction shown between this 99. No error in judgment on the part See COLLECTOR, 16. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 3 to 5. E EJECTMENT. 1. What consideration, by way of equi- See EQUITY, 6. PARTIES TO ACTIONS, 1. ENDORSEE. See CORPORATION, 2. PROMISSORY NOTE, 2. 2. A Court of Probate in Connecticut id. 3. Held, also, that, under that statute, 6. Held, also, that, as the minor had id. ERROR. See PRACTICE, 8. ESTOPPEL. See COLLECTOR, 10, 12. EVIDENCE. 1. Under the 34th section of the Judi- See ATTACHMENT, 1 to 4, 7. DUTIES, 31, 71. PATENTS, 35, 37, 53, 62 to 65, 76. PROMISSORY NOTE, 1. SHIPPING, 22, 85. EXECUTION. See PRACTICE, 10, 11. EXPERIMENT. See PATENTS, 83. EXTENSION. See PATENTS, 11 to 32. EXTRADITION. 1. The views expressed by Mr. Justice |