# Kendall v. Lyman

> District Court, D. Massachusetts · March 20, 1908 · 161 F. 652

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8767332

## Case

- **Full name:** KENDALL v. LYMAN
- **Court:** District Court, D. Massachusetts
- **Decided:** March 20, 1908
- **Citations:** 161 F. 652; 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4373
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Colt
- **Judges:** Colt
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8767332

## Opinion text

COLT, Circuit Judge.
Under the agreed statement of facts I have-reached the following conclusions:
1. Section 21 of the act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, 18 Stat. 190 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1986), has no application to this case, because the statute is limited to cases in which no protest has been filed. Gulbenkian v. Stranahan, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, April 29, 1907 (T. D. 28,451) 158 Fed. 836 ; Klumpp v. Thomas (United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, February 25, 1907) T. D. 28,453, 162 Fed. --; Klumpp v. Thomas (United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, February 11, 1908) T. D. 28,818, 162 Fed. --.
2. The Secretary of the Treasury had the power to order the reliquidation of November 23, 1905, since this case is clearly governed by-the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Whitridge, 197 U. S. 135 , 25 Sup. Ct. 406, 49 L. Ed. 696 (T. D. 26,126).
' 3. Since there was a technical breach of duty in the failure of the collector to transmit the papers to the Board of General Appraisers, as-required by section 14 of the customs administrative act of 1890, judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for nominal damages in the: sum of $1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8767332. Public record. Not legal advice.