HOMER
v.
THE COLLECTOR
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.
In a tariff classification dispute, the Supreme Court held that almonds cannot be classified as "dried fruit" under the Tariff Act of 1857 and therefore remain subject to the specific duty of 40 percent ad valorem imposed on almonds by name in earlier tariff acts, rejecting the argument based on commercial usage since almonds had been separately enumerated in tariff law since 1804.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court:
The argument is, that almonds are dried fruit, and hence are provided for in the second section of the act of 1857; and evidence was offered on the trial to show that such was the commercial sense of the term. But this inquiry had nothing to do with the question, and, indeed, it is difficult to see how any' such inquiry could take place except as matter of curiosity and speculation; for, certainly, such proof could not exist or be found in the sense of commercial usage under any of the tariff* acts, as a duty has been imposed on almonds, eo nomine, almost immemorially, at least since the duty act of 1804, and continued in the duty act of 1816, 1832, 1842, 1846. The article, as we have seen, is charged specifically with a duty of 40 p. e. ad valorem in the act of 1846, and is not named In the changes in the act of 1857. Eull effect can be given to the term “ fruit,” “ dried,” without the very forced construction to bring within it the article in question. Direction to the court below that almonds are subject to duty of 30 p. c. ad valorem. The other questions certified need not be answered.
Direction accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1891)…neral terms in the same act, though sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it; in other words, the-article will be classified by its specific designation, rather than under a general description. Homer v. The Collector, 1 Wall. 486; Arthur v. Lahey, 96 U. S. 112; Arthur v. Stephani, 96 U. S. 125; Movius v. Arthur, 95 U. S. 144. We think the intention of Congress that these goods should be classified as “ gilling twine ”• is plain; but were the question one of doubt, we should…
-
Brougham v. Blanton Mfg. Co., 249 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1919)…t, bearing the trade-name 'oleomargarine,’ prescribed by a special revenue law to [*498] be used in the sale thereof, and that statutory name is not ‘false or deceptive’ when so used.” And for the contention the company relies on Homer v. Collector, 1 Wall. 486, and Chew Hing Lung v. Wise, 176 U. S. 156. The further contention is that § 6 of the Olegmargarine Act (24 Stat. 209) requires the article to be packed in a particular way which is not the same as that prescribed by the meat inspection act and was…
-
Barber v. Schell, 107 U.S. 617 (U.S. 1882)…question, and we think it a sound one. It was the view adopted by the Circuit Court in this case. There is no question of commercial designation. Hence, the cases cited and relied on by the importers are not in their favor. Homer v. The Collector, 1 Wall. 486, in 1863, was a case in which Mr. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion of this court. [*622] It was a case under these same statutes. Almonds were dutiable, by that name, at forty per cent, in schedule B of the act of 1846. Under the act of 1867 the…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence