Buttfield v. Bidwell

Supreme Court

Buttfield v. Bidwell

192 U.S. 498, 24 S. Ct. 356, 48 L. Ed. 536, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 966

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 23, 1904

Docket296

StatusPublished

This text of 192 U.S. 498 (Buttfield v. Bidwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buttfield v. Bidwell, 192 U.S. 498, 24 S. Ct. 356, 48 L. Ed. 536, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 966 (1904).

Pincite

Opinion

' Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action1 was brought by Buttfield to recover damages sustained by being prevented from importing into the United States a large number of packages of Country green teas, being *499 four shipments from China. These teas, on reexamination by the board of general appraisers, were found to be inferior in quality to the standard prescribed by law; and Bidwell, as collector for the port of New York, so notified Buttfield. Thereupon the teas were withdrawn from the bonded warehouse and exported. Judgment was entered for Bidwell upon a directed verdict in his favor. The right to reversal of that judgment is predicated solely upon the asserted unconstitutionality of the tea inspection act of March 2, 1897. It will not be necessary to determine whether, even supposing the statute to be unconstitutional, a cause of action is stated in any of the four cduiits of the complaint below. The statute having been held to be valid in the opinion just announcéd in Buttfield v. Stranahan, the judgment must be and is hereby

Affirmed.

Me. Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Brown took no part in the decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

' Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action1 was brought by Buttfield to recover damages sustained by being prevented from importing into the United States a large number of packages of Country green teas, being *499 four shipments from China. These teas, on reexamination by the board of general appraisers, were found to be inferior in quality to the standard prescribed by law; and Bidwell, as collector for the port of New York, so notified Buttfield. Thereupon the teas were withdrawn from the bonded warehouse and exported. Judgment was entered for Bidwell upon a directed verdict in his favor. The right to reversal of that judgment is predicated solely upon the asserted unconstitutionality of the tea inspection act of March 2, 1897. It will not be necessary to determine whether, even supposing the statute to be unconstitutional, a cause of action is stated in any of the four cduiits of the complaint below. The statute having been held to be valid in the opinion just announcéd in Buttfield v. Stranahan, the judgment must be and is hereby

Affirmed.

Me. Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Brown took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 U.S. 498, 24 S. Ct. 356, 48 L. Ed. 536, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buttfield-v-bidwell-scotus-1904.