NIX
v.
HEDDEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court resolved a tariff classification dispute by holding that tomatoes are vegetables, not fruit, for purposes of the Tariff Act of 1883, despite being botanically classified as fruit. The Court determined that tariff statutes must be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of words in common language—reflecting how the general public understands provisions—rather than according to botanical or scientific definitions, and therefore tomatoes should be classified as vegetables because they are typically served as part of the main course rather than as dessert.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. The United States, 207 U.S. 556 (U.S. 1908)
-
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020)…mon , 130 U.S. 412, 414, 9 S.Ct. 559, 32 L.Ed. 995 (1889). The Court explained that tomatoes are literally "the fruit of a vine," but "in the common language of the people," tomatoes are vegetables. Nix v. Hedden , 149 U.S. 304, 307, 13 S.Ct. 881, 37 L.Ed. 745 (1893). The Court stated that the statutory term "vehicle" does not cover an aircraft: "No doubt etymologically it is possible to use the word to signify a conveyance working on land, water or air .... But in everyday speech 'vehicle' calls up the…1 / 2
-
Hancock v. Am. Steel & Wire Co. of N.J., 203 F.2d 737 (C.C.P.A. 1953)…definitions to determine- the factual issue of the popular meaning of words. We shall consider the latter contention first. The meaning of these two words is the crux of the cáse. Courts take judicial notice of the meaning of words, Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 13 S.Ct. 881, 37 L.Ed. 745, and the court may always refer to standard dictionaries or other recognized authorities to refresh its memory and understanding as to the common meaning of language. United States v. Doragon Co. 12 Cust.App. 524, T.D. 40…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1875)
- Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1890)
- Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1889)