Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Armstrong v. United States

182 U.S. 243

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1901-05-27
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that the tariffs imposed on goods exported from the mainland to Puerto Rico were invalid after the ratification of the Treaty of Paris
  • invalidating tariffs imposed on goods exported from the United States to Puerto Rico after the ratification of the treaty between the United States and Spain
  • post-treaty duties on imports are recoverable under Dooley

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Armstrong v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
51 opinions
ARMSTRONGv. UNITED STATES,182 U.S. 243(1901)
21 S.Ct. 827
ARMSTRONGv. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
No. 509.
Argued January 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1901.
Decided May 27, 1901.
Dooleyv.United States, ante, 222, followed.
THIS was a petition to the Court of Claims by a British
subject, to recover duties exacted by the collector of the port
of San Juan, and paid under protest, upon goods, wares, and
merchandise of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United
States, between August 12, 1898, and December 5, 1899.
The same demurrer was filed and the same judgment was entered
as in the preceding case.
Mr. Alphonso HartandMr. John G. Carlislefor appellant.Mr. John C. ChaneyandMr. Charles C. Leedswere onMr.Hart'sbrief.Mr. Solicitor GeneralandMr. Attorney Generalfor appellee.Page 244
MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is controlled by the case ofDooleyv.UnitedStates, No. 501, just decided. So far as the duties were exacted upon goods imported prior to the ratification of the treaty of April 11, 1899, they were properly exacted. So far as they were imposed upon importations after that date and prior to December 5, 1899, plaintiff is entitled to recover them back.The judgment of the Court of Claims is therefore reversed andthe case remanded to that court for further proceedings notinconsistent with this opinion.