Ferry v. Livingston

115 U.S. 542, 6 S. Ct. 175, 29 L. Ed. 489, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1866
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 7, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 115 U.S. 542 (Ferry v. Livingston) 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
Ferry v. Livingston, 115 U.S. 542, 6 S. Ct. 175, 29 L. Ed. 489, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1866 (1885).

Opinion

*543 Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court. ■The question involved in this suit is as to whether under the present tariff of duties, on imported merchandise, certain man-gel-wurzel, turnip, beet, and cabbage seeds are subject to a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem, or are free.

In the Revised Statutes, as enacted in 1874, Title XXXIII., section 2504, Schedule M, p. 480, 2d ed., there was the following provision as to duty: “ Plants. Fruit, shade, lawn, and ornamental trees, shrubs, plants,' and flower, seeds, not otherwise provided for; garden seeds, and all other seeds for agricultural and horticultural purposes, not otherwise.provided for: twenty per centum ad valorem.” In “ The Free List,” se'ction 2505,. p. 488, 2d ed., exempt from duty, were the following: “ Seeds: cardamon, caraway, coriander, fenugreek, fennel, cummin, and other , seeds, not otherwise provided" for. Seeds.: anise, anise star, canary, chia, sesamum, sugar-cane, and seeds of forest trees.”

By section 6 of the act of March 3, 1883, ch. 121, 22 Stat. 489, new sections, numbered from 2491 to 2513, both inclusive, ■were substituted, on and after July 1,1883, for Title XXXIII.' of the Revised Statutes, thus repealing sections 2491 to 2516, both inclusive, of the Revised Statutes. In section 2502, Schedule N, as enact'ed in 1883, is the following provision for duty, p. 513: “ Garden seeds, except seed of the sugar-beet, twenty per centum ad valorem.” In “ The Free List,” section 2503, exempt from duty, are the following: “Plants, trees, shrubs, and vines of all kinds, not otherwise provided for, and seeds of all kinds, except medicinal seeds .not specially enumerated or provided for in this Act.” p. 520. “Seed of the sugar-beet.”, p. 521. In section 2502,-Schedule A, p. 494, a duty of 10 per centum ad valorem is imposed on “ seeds (aromatic, not garden seeds), and' seeds of morbid growth, . .• . which are not edible, but which have been advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by other process of manufacture, and not specially enumerated or provided for in this Act.” In “ The Free List,” section 2503, exempt from duty, are the following, p. 517: “Seeds aromatic, and seeds of morbid growth, . . . which are not edible, and are in..a crude state, and not *544 advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by any other process of manufacture, and not specially enumerated or provided for in this Act.”

The question involved'depends upon the mean'ng of the words garden seeds; ” and, with a view to determine whether that designation in the statute, includes the seeds covered by this suit, it will be useful to see what was the course of decisions by the Treasury Department, under the act of 1883, prior to the importation in this case, which was in December, 1884.

On November 2, 1883, 29 Int. Rev. Rec. 410, the Department decided that flower seeds were not to be regarded as “garden seeds,” but were free, on the view that the term, “ garden seeds ” was to be “ generally confined to those seeds' which are produced from edible plants, and does not extend to flower seeds.”

Subsequently, a collector exacted a duty of 20 per cent, on pease imported as seeds, and not for consumption as vegetables, and, the question .being presented whether they were “garden seeds,” the Department, on November 27, 1883, 29 Int. Rev. Rec. 419, made this ruling: “The general and not the exceptional use must determine the. classification of the article. Asa rule, pease, beans, and many other vegetable products are more largely sown in the field or farm than in the garden, although some varieties may be specially adapted for garden planting. It is .held by the Department, that all pease and beans imported for seeds are entitled to free admission under the provision ■ in the free list ... for seeds of all kinds not specially enumerated dr provided for in that act. ... . I may add, for y<W further information, that the Department regards seeds such as barley, beans, beets, carrots, cabbage, clover, corn,' cane, grass, .mangel-wurzel, oats, onions, potatoes, pumpkins, rye,, tobacco, turnip, wheat, and other like products, as belonging to the category of agricultural seeds Avhich are not garden seeds; and.that seeds of the artichoke, asparagus, borecole, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, celery, cucumber, egg-plant, lettuce, leek, okra, parsley, pepper, rhubarb, radish, salsify, and tomato belong to the category of garden seeds. It is impossible to enumerate all the seeds which belong *545 to either of these divisions in detail, and the above is given for information, as to the principle upon which collectors of customs must act.”

It is thus seen that these instructions classified beet, cabbage, mangel-wurzel, and turnip seeds, as free, because not garden seeds; and as not garden seeds, because they were agricultural seeds,, and were, more largely sown in the field or farm than in the garden, and because the general use and not the exceptional use must determine the classification.

On Decimber 28, 188?, a collector having exacted a duty on cabbage séeds and beet seeds as garden seeds;- the Department, 30 Int. Rev. Rec. 24, referring to its decision of November 27, 1883, held that the seeds were free, and directed the duty to be refunded.

On March 8, 1884, the Department, 30 Int. Rev. Rec. 77, held that lettuce seeds and spinach seeds were dutiable as. “ garden seeds; ” and, on March 18, 1884, Id. 95, it held that nasturtium seeds, being generally planted in gardens, and producing not only flowers, but seeds or berries which, when green, are largely used for cooking purposes, and in the manufacture of sauces, were dutiable as garden seeds.”

Afterwards, a collector exacted a duty of 20 per cent, on certain beans, as “ garden seeds.” On the view that they were the seeds of the bean plant, and were intended for food or for planting or sowing, the Department, on March 28, 1884, 30 Int. Rev. Rec. 109, reconsidered to some extent its rulings of November 27, 1883. It held that the beans, being edible, were not within the specific provisions as to beans, which made beans not edible free of duty.; and that they were riot vegetables, but were the seeds of a vegetable.,: On the Question of whether they were “ garden seeds,” it is said: “ Iii commón speech, * garden seeds ’ are seeds used either for planting or sowing in the gardens adjacent to dwelling-houses, small spaces of land, and in the large spaces of land called market gardens, lying about cities or other large places of numerous and condensed population. The common notion of garden seeds is this, that they are those from which are raised, in the growing season of the year, the vegetable

*546 products which, before complete maturity, are used upon thó tr.ple as part of the customary food of mankind, and in distinction from those seeds which, sowed or planted on a broader scale in the fields, produce the vegetables which are stored for winter use as food. Yet it is to be taken note of, that, by extended field culture, there is produced much of the seed which finds its way to market and to sale as ‘ garden seeds,’ in the common notion thereof above stated.

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

Related

E. Miltenberg, Inc. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 18 (U.S. Customs Court, 1957)
Ross & Co. v. United States
9 Ct. Cust. 235 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1919)
Hervieu v. J. S. Ogilvie Pub. Co.
169 F. 978 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1909)
Clay v. Magone
40 F. 230 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1889)
Robertson v. Salomon
130 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 U.S. 542, 6 S. Ct. 175, 29 L. Ed. 489, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferry-v-livingston-scotus-1885.