SALTONSTALL
v.
BIRTWELL
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.
A dispute arose over tariff duties on imported articles, with disagreement between the collector and the importer regarding what was charged and under which provisions of the 1883 tariff act the duties applied. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that the trial court's special findings of fact were too vague and incomplete to support the judgment, as they failed to specify what the collector charged, adequately describe the imported articles, or indicate which tariff provisions the parties claimed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mjr. Chief Justice Fuller,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
We are of opinion that the facts set .forth in the special findings are not sufficient to support the judgment. • The-findings (jo not show what the collector charged the plaintiff; nor sufficiently describe the articles imported; nor does it appear from the record under what provisions of the tariff act of-March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 488, c. 121, the parties claimed - respectively. The opinion might help the findings out, but cannot be resorted to for that purpose. Dickinson v. Planters' Bank, 16 Wall. 250.
We.are unable, therefore, to direct judgment for either party. Chesapeake Ins. Co. v. Stark, 6 Cranch. 268, 273; Harden v. Fisher, 1 Wheat. 300, 303; Barnes v. Williams, 11 Wheat. 415; McArthur v. Porter’s Lessee, 1 Pet. 626; Ex parte French, 91 U. S. 423; Ryan v. Carter, 93 U. S. 78, 81; Hodges v. Easton, 106 U. S. 408, 411; Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112 U. S. 150, 165; Tyre & Spring Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U. S. 541, 545, 546 ; Allen v. St. Louis Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 30, 40; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192; Lloyd v. McWilliams, 137 U. S. 576.
Judgment reversed and cañóse remamdedfor a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stone v. United States, 164 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1896)…re not at liberty to refer to the opinion for the purpose of eking out, controlling or modifying the scope of the findings. British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co., 139 U. S. 222; Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U. S. 71; Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 U. S. 417. Neither is this a case like United States v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37, in which in one finding was stated the testimony, and in another the conclusion as to the ultimate fact, in which case the court held that it might consider the sufficiency of such te…
-
De la Rama v. De la Rama, 201 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1906)…opinion. It is doubtful. whether this is a finding of facts within the statute, Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U, S. 71; British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co., 139 U. S. 222; Dickinson v. Planters’ Bank, 16 Wall. 250; Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 U. S. 417; Stone v. United States, 164 U. S. 380, but in any event it is not binding upon us in the absence of an authority to make it. While, as indicated in Simms v. Simms, the decree for alimony, although in one sense an incident to the suit for divorce,…
-
M. M. Landy, Inc. v. Nicholas, 221 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1955)…to be had as may be just under the circumstances.” . See Green County v. Quinlan, 211 U.S. 582, 29 S.Ct. 162, 53 L.Ed. 335, and Green County v. Thomas’ Executor, 211 U.S. 598, 29 S.Ct. 168, 170, 53 L.Ed. 343. Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 U.S. 217, 14 S.Ct. 169, 37 L.Ed. 1128.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Hodges v. Easton, 106 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1882)
- Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1884)
- Ryan v. Carter, 93 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1876)
- Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1889)
- Allen v. ST. Louis Bank, 120 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1887)
- Dickinson v. The Planters' Bank, 16 Wall. 250 (U.S. 1872)
- The Chesapeake Ins. Co. v. Stark, 6 Cranch 268 (U.S. 1810)
- Barnes and Others against Williams, 11 Wheat. 415 (U.S. 1826)
- Tyre & Spring Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1886)
- Lloyd v. McWILLIAMS, 137 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1890)