David Kaufman & Sons Company v. Smith

Supreme Court

David Kaufman & Sons Company v. Smith

216 U.S. 610, 54 L. Ed. 636, 30 S. Ct. 419, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1932

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 7, 1910

Docket668

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 216 U.S. 610 (David Kaufman & Sons Company v. Smith) 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

David Kaufman & Sons Company v. Smith, 216 U.S. 610, 54 L. Ed. 636, 30 S. Ct. 419, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1932 (1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

It is established that to give this court jurisdiction on a direct appeal from, or writ of. error to, a Circuit Court on' the ground of á constitutional question, such question must be real and substantial, and hot a mere claim 'in. words.

This was an action brought against the Collector of Customs for the recovery of duties paid under the act of March 2, 1905, ' 33 Stats. 843, entitled, “ An act fixing the status of merchan *611 dise coining into the United States from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama,” providing “that all,laws affecting imports of articles, goods, wares, and merchandise and entry of persons into the United States from foreign countries shall apply to articles, goods, wares, and merchandise and persons coming from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama, and seeking entry into any State or Territory of the United States or the ■ District of Columbia. ”

Plaintiff claimed that the merchandise in question was not liable to the duties thus paid, but the Circuit Court ruled that in view of the treaty between the Republic of Panama and the United States, and the various acts of Congress relating to such Zone, the principles laid down in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 II. S. 244, were decisive of the questions raised herein. We concur in that conclusion and dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.

Writ of error dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

It is established that to give this court jurisdiction on a direct appeal from, or writ of. error to, a Circuit Court on' the ground of á constitutional question, such question must be real and substantial, and hot a mere claim 'in. words.

This was an action brought against the Collector of Customs for the recovery of duties paid under the act of March 2, 1905, ' 33 Stats. 843, entitled, “ An act fixing the status of merchan *611 dise coining into the United States from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama,” providing “that all,laws affecting imports of articles, goods, wares, and merchandise and entry of persons into the United States from foreign countries shall apply to articles, goods, wares, and merchandise and persons coming from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama, and seeking entry into any State or Territory of the United States or the ■ District of Columbia. ”

Plaintiff claimed that the merchandise in question was not liable to the duties thus paid, but the Circuit Court ruled that in view of the treaty between the Republic of Panama and the United States, and the various acts of Congress relating to such Zone, the principles laid down in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 II. S. 244, were decisive of the questions raised herein. We concur in that conclusion and dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.

Writ of error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 U.S. 610, 54 L. Ed. 636, 30 S. Ct. 419, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-kaufman-sons-company-v-smith-scotus-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack