est SOHLESINGER' and others UNITED
BEARJ).'
(Nol :f546.)
STATES V. SOHLFJSINGlllB and otherS.- (No. 1548.) December 29,
"a.rou;' Oourt, D. DuTIB8 ON IMPORTll-WROUGHT ScRAP-IRON.
The and clippings of wrought-iron and wrought iron, left after the manufacture of the boilt;lr.plateB into boilers, though It i. waste iron, fit only to be manufactured. cann'?t be deemed 8craP-lfonf01' dutiable purpose8. because it has not been in actual use. .
George P. Sanger, U. S. Atty., ffi>r the United St!lltes. .0" L. S. Dabney and W. S. Halt, for Schlesinger and others. LOWELL, C. J. These. cases are submitted on agreed faots, require me to decide whether the, punchings and olippings iron boiler-plates and wrought sheet-iron, left. a.fter the of the boiler-plates into boilers was completed,'is dutiabieat eIght dol.. lars a ton as wrought 'If so,. the importers are, right j ,if not, the duty charged by the c,oUector is rightly stat· ute, is Rev. St. § ll'l,p" 466: "Wrought scrap-iron 01 description, eight PElrton. . But, nothlJlg deemed scrap-iron except waste 9r refuse. iron that has been in actual . use, and is fit only. to be remanufactured." . It is agreed t,hat this is waste iron, fit only to be remanufactqred.·. The Qnly question., is 'whether it has been in ,actual use. I do' nO,1 find any recognized meaning of the words use" which be fairly applied to this new scrap-iron. The plates from whjch punched or clipped were new, and had been in no actual use, and I Qannot discover a·ny use to whioh, the cHppings pave been put,' allY ID:0re than I can any to which theY may be put hereafter l:1:n:til they ; they are remanufactured. . . The statqte seems harsh, pl!\in. is '. thoroughly considereq, and the 'V&J.'ious statutes, to the Revised,. Statutes, are compared j:lyludge DElVENS in his Qpinic;m on oJ:}El of these '. cases, in 16 Op. Atty. Gen. 445, with which I' will be: " '" .. , In No. 1546, judgmeJ;}Horthe 'defen4antsfor oosts. .. In No. 1548, judgment for tnEl plainti1fsfor and" costs. . . " '. r . \\ . , . : .' . , 0
*Reverlled. See 7 Sup., 0$. Rep.
688 . UNITED STATES V.
LOEB and others.
(Olreuit Oourt, 8. D. N6UJ Yor".) Durr1LLER'B BOND-JUDGMENT ON.
In an action on a distiller's bond, a verdict was rendered for tbe full amount of the bond, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question whether 'he. sureties were entitled to a deduction from the verdict of the amount realized from the sale of the distiller's personal property. Held, on a motion for judgment on the verdict, that the judgrilent should be entered for the fUll amount of the bond, the sum realized from the personal property not a legal off-set.
Mr. Hill, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States. Mr. Elli8:for defendant Conklin. C6:xE,D. J. This is an action on a leaseholder's (distiller's) bond. On the· trial a· verdict W!tS rendered for the full amount of the bond and interest, subject to opinion of the court. The plaintiff now moves for judgment on the verdict. .The defendant Conklin, one tif the sureties, insists that there should be deducted from the verdict the amount realized from sale of the distiller's personal property, which was forfeited for various violations of the statute, and sold according.to law. This position cannot be successfully maintained. It was the evident intention of congress that in cases of fraud, not only the personal property but the real estate should be forfeited. The bond in this case was given pursuant to section 3262 of the Revised Statutes, as a substitute for the real estate; the distiller holding simply a leasehold interest therein. The act provides, in substance, that if the distiller is not the owner of the fee, he must obtain the consent of the owner and incnmbrancers to the effect "that in case of the forfeiture Of the distillery premises, or of any part thereof, the title of the same shall vest in the United States." In lieu of this consent the distiller may give a bond-the bond in this case-conditioned "that in case the distillery, distilling apparatus, or any part thereof, shall by final judgment be forfeited for the violation of any of the provisions of law, the obligors shall pay the amount stated in ;aid bond·.. In order to establish the liability of the obligors, proof is necessary that the distillery, distilling apparatus, or some part thereof, has, by final judgment, been forfeited. This proof was produced on the trial, Nothing further was required. The bond is not intended as security simply; it is enforced as a penalty-as a punishment for fraud. U. 8. v. Distillery at Spring Valley, 11 Blatchf. 255. If the position ot
