BUTTFIELD
v.
BIDWELL
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.
Buttfield brought suit against Bidwell, the collector of the port of New York, to recover damages for being prevented from importing tea shipments from China that were deemed substandard under the Tea Inspection Act of 1897. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment for Bidwell, holding that the Tea Inspection Act was constitutional and that the collector properly rejected the tea importations as failing to meet the statutory quality standard.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
' Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
This action1 was brought by Buttfield to recover damages sustained by being prevented from importing into the United States a large number of packages of Country green teas, being four shipments from China. These teas, on reexamination by the board of general appraisers, were found to be inferior in quality to the standard prescribed by law; and Bidwell, as collector for the port of New York, so notified Buttfield. Thereupon the teas were withdrawn from the bonded warehouse and exported. Judgment was entered for Bidwell upon a directed verdict in his favor. The right to reversal of that judgment is predicated solely upon the asserted unconstitutionality of the tea inspection act of March 2, 1897. It will not be necessary to determine whether, even supposing the statute to be unconstitutional, a cause of action is stated in any of the four cduiits of the complaint below. The statute having been held to be valid in the opinion just announcéd in Buttfield v. Stranahan, the judgment must be and is hereby
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Brown took no part in the decision of this case.