DAVID KAUFMAN & SONS COMPANY
v.
SMITH, COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
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.
David Kaufman & Sons Company sought recovery of customs duties paid on merchandise from the Canal Zone under an 1905 federal statute that applied foreign import laws to goods from that territory. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment that the duties were validly imposed under the principles established in Downes v. Bidwell and dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, finding no substantial constitutional question warranting the Court's review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
It is established that to give this court jurisdiction on a direct appeal from, or writ of. error to, a Circuit Court on' the ground of á constitutional question, such question must be real and substantial, and hot a mere claim 'in. words.
This was an action brought against the Collector of Customs for the recovery of duties paid under the act of March 2, 1905, ' 33 Stats. 843, entitled, “ An act fixing the status of merchandise coining into the United States from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama,” providing “that all,laws affecting imports of articles, goods, wares, and merchandise and entry of persons into the United States from foreign countries shall apply to articles, goods, wares, and merchandise and persons coming from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama, and seeking entry into any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia. ”
Plaintiff claimed that the merchandise in question was not liable to the duties thus paid, but the Circuit Court ruled that in view of the treaty between the Republic of Panama and the United States, and the various acts of Congress relating to such Zone, the principles laid down in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 II. S. 244, were decisive of the questions raised herein. We concur in that conclusion and dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham, 253 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1920)…llant’s contract, or a taking of its property in violation of the Constitution of the United States is so plainly frivolous that the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, filed inr each case, must be sustained. David Kaufman Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U. S. 610; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182. Dismissed.…
-
United States v. Washington, 586 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1978)…ower to search. Whatever may be the status of the Canal Zone vis-a-vis the United States for other purposes, it is clear that for purposes of customs and entry the Canal Zone is a foreign country. 19 U.S.C. § 1264; David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U.S. 610, 611, 30 S.Ct. 419, 54 L.Ed. 636 (1910). Hence, since Fourth Amendment standards are inapplicable to materials mailed from abroad, a parcel mailed from the Canal Zone is subject to search at its point of entry merely because it enters the United St…
-
Griffith v. State of Conn., 218 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1910)
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence