Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
David Kaufman & Sons Company v. Smith
David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U.S. 610 (1910)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1910-03-07
- Topic
- general
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 merchan *611 dise 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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed David Kaufman & Sons Company v. Smith. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 17 opinions
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 merchan *611 dise 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.