Dieckerhoff v. Robertson

In this case plaintiffs ask to amend the bill of particulars by increasing the amount claimed therein for excess of duty. The mistake in making up the original statement, however, appears to have been entirely that of plaintiffs’ agent or broker, and in no way induced by any misinformation furnished at the custom-house. The motion is denied. See memoranda in Castner v. Magone, ante, 578, and Sherman v. Hedden, ante, 756, (filed November 7, 1887.)