Nix v. Hedden

149 U.S. 304, 13 S. Ct. 881, 37 L. Ed. 745, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2303
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 10, 1893
Docket137
StatusPublished
Cited by111 cases

This text of 149 U.S. 304 (Nix v. Hedden) 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
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 13 S. Ct. 881, 37 L. Ed. 745, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2303 (1893).

Opinion

Mb. Justice G-eay,

"after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The single question in this case is whether tomatoes, considered as provisions, are to be classed as “ vegetables ” or as “fruit,” within the meaning of the.Tariff Act of-1883.

The only witnesses called' at the trial testified that neither “vegetables” nor “fruit” had any special-meaning in trade or commerce, different from that given in the dictionaries; and that they had the same meaning in trade to-day that they had in March, 1883.

The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word “ fruit' ” as the seed of plants, or that part of plants which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and" containing the seed. -These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are “ fruit,” as distinguished from “ vegetables,” in common speech, or within the meaning of the Tariff Act.

There being no evidence that the words “ fruit ” and “ vegetables ” have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce, they must receive their ordinary meaning. Of that *307 meaning the court is bound to take judicial notice, as it does in regard to all words in our own tongue; and upon such a question dictionaries are admitted, not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 42; Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 216; Nelson v. Cushing, 2 Cush. 519, 532, 533; Page v. Fawcet, 1 Leon. 242; Taylor on Evidence, (8th ed.) §§ 16, 21.

JBotanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables, which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with or after the soup, fish or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.

The attempt to class tomatoes with fruit is not unlike a recent attempt to class beans as seeds, of which Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this court, said: “ We do not see why they should be classified as seeds, any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance. On the other hand, in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term) ‘vegetables.’ Asan article of food on ouq tables, whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup, they are used as a vegetable, as well when ripe as when green. This is the principal use to which they are put. Beyond the common knowledge which we have on this subject, very little evidence is necessary, or can be produced.” Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U. S. 412, 414.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Quinteros v. InnoGames
W.D. Washington, 2024
James Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Company
102 F.4th 1208 (Eleventh Circuit, 2024)
Biden v. Nebraska
600 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 2023)
Kym Pardini v. Unilever United States, Inc.
65 F.4th 1081 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)
Milwood v. Camden Nat'l Bank
Maine Superior, 2021
United States v. Tre Tate
999 F.3d 374 (Sixth Circuit, 2021)
Bostock v. Clayton County
590 U.S. 644 (Supreme Court, 2020)
Hughes v. Benjamin
S.D. New York, 2020
In re Keise
564 B.R. 255 (D. New Jersey, 2017)
California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Yolo
4 Cal. App. 5th 150 (California Court of Appeal, 2016)
Sigma-Tau Healthscience, Inc. v. United States
838 F.3d 1272 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Kohl v. New Sewickley Township Zoning Hearing Board
108 A.3d 961 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Gila River Indian Community v. United States
729 F.3d 1139 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Public Service Co. v. Department of Revenue
397 P.3d 1111 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011)
United States v. Sergeant TODD R. MARCHESANO
67 M.J. 535 (Army Court of Criminal Appeals, 2008)
Bronx Household of Faith v. BOARD OF EDUC., NY
492 F.3d 89 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Unelko Corp. v. Prestone Products Corp.
116 F.3d 237 (Seventh Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 U.S. 304, 13 S. Ct. 881, 37 L. Ed. 745, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nix-v-hedden-scotus-1893.