Skip to content


FinkelsteIn and Kommel Vs. United States - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number275 U.S. 501
AppellantFinkelsteIn and Kommel
RespondentUnited States
Excerpt:
finkelstein & kommel v. united states - 275 u.s. 501 (1927) u.s. supreme court finkelstein & kommel v. united states, 275 u.s. 501 (1927) 275 u.s. 501 no. 346. finkelstein & kommel, petitioners, v. the united states. supreme court of the united states november 28, 1927 mr. frederick w. brooks, jr., of new york city, for petitioners. per curiam. reversed on the authority of the united states v. fish, 268 u.s. 607, 612 , 45 s. ct. 616; the decision being that section 489 of the tariff act of 1922 (c. 356, 42 stat. 858, 962 (19 usca 361) does not forbid the customs court to adopt rules of practice permitting the filing of such petitions before liquidation, that it has jurisdiction to consider petitions so filed, and its decision.....
Judgment:
FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL v. UNITED STATES - 275 U.S. 501 (1927)
U.S. Supreme Court FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL v. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 501 (1927)

275 U.S. 501
No. 346.

FINKELSTEIN & KOMMEL, petitioners,
v.
The UNITED STATES.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 28, 1927

Mr. Frederick W. Brooks, Jr., of New York City, for petitioners.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of the United States v. Fish, 268 U.S. 607, 612 , 45 S. Ct. 616; the decision being that section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 962 (19 USCA 361) does not forbid the Customs Court to adopt rules of practice permitting the filing of such petitions before liquidation, that it has jurisdiction to consider petitions so filed, and its decision in this case granting the petition was not ineffective for want of jurisdiction.[ Finkelstein & Kommel v. United States 275 U.S. 501 (1927) ]


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //