UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

From the evidence in this case, it is clear that the assignor of the defendants in error employed the plaintiffs in error as their agents to enter at the Custom House in New York importations of sugar imported by them, and, after protest, to commence suits to recover an excess of duty imposed upon the importations, and that the plaintiffs in error undertook to perform those services, and, it being settled in actions brought by other persons under similar circumstances and on like importations, that such duties were illegally exacted, and the plaintiffs in error having failed to commence suits within the period limited by law to recover such as were illegally exacted from the assignor of the defendants in error, held that the judgment of the court below for their recovery must be affirmed. clubjuris

Page 125 U. S. 586

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The defendants in error were assignees of Burgess, and were admitted by the court, under the provisions of the Code of New York to appear as such, and as plaintiffs there to prosecute the suit to judgment.