Hardy v. Hoyt

Supreme Court

Hardy v. Hoyt

38 U.S. 292, 10 L. Ed. 167, 13 Pet. 292, 1839 U.S. LEXIS 436

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 27, 1839

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 38 U.S. 292 (Hardy v. Hoyt) 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

Hardy v. Hoyt, 38 U.S. 292, 10 L. Ed. 167, 13 Pet. 292, 1839 U.S. LEXIS 436 (1839).

Pincite

Opinion

*293 Mr. Justice Story

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the second point, only, which has been just decided in the case of Bend vs. Hoyt; and,'therefore, it is only necessary to say that it will be certified to the Circuit Court for the southern district of New York, that the silk stockings and half-stockings mentioned in the case, were exempted from duty on their importation, under the act of the 2d of March, 1833, ch. 384.

This cause came on to be heard on the tránscript of .the record from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the southern district of New York, on the points and questions on which the judges of the • said Circuit. Court were opposed in opinion, and which were certified to this Court for its opinion, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion,. that the silk hose,, as manufactures of silk, not being sewing silk, were exempted from the payment of duty, by the fourth, section of the act of the 2d of March, 1833, entitled, “An act to modify the act of the 14th of July, 1832, and all other ac.ts imposing duties on imports,” which declares, that all manufactures of silk, or of which’silk is the component material of chief value, coming from this' side of the Cape of .Good Hope, except sewing silk, shall be free of duty.’ Whereupon, it is ordered and-adjudged by this Court, that it be so certified to the said Circuit Court, and that this case be remanded to the said. .Court, that further proceedings may be had therein according to. law. ■

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

*293 Mr. Justice Story

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the second point, only, which has been just decided in the case of Bend vs. Hoyt; and,'therefore, it is only necessary to say that it will be certified to the Circuit Court for the southern district of New York, that the silk stockings and half-stockings mentioned in the case, were exempted from duty on their importation, under the act of the 2d of March, 1833, ch. 384.

This cause came on to be heard on the tránscript of .the record from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the southern district of New York, on the points and questions on which the judges of the • said Circuit. Court were opposed in opinion, and which were certified to this Court for its opinion, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion,. that the silk hose,, as manufactures of silk, not being sewing silk, were exempted from the payment of duty, by the fourth, section of the act of the 2d of March, 1833, entitled, “An act to modify the act of the 14th of July, 1832, and all other ac.ts imposing duties on imports,” which declares, that all manufactures of silk, or of which’silk is the component material of chief value, coming from this' side of the Cape of .Good Hope, except sewing silk, shall be free of duty.’ Whereupon, it is ordered and-adjudged by this Court, that it be so certified to the said Circuit Court, and that this case be remanded to the said. .Court, that further proceedings may be had therein according to. law. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 U.S. 292, 10 L. Ed. 167, 13 Pet. 292, 1839 U.S. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardy-v-hoyt-scotus-1839.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack