David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. SmithAnnotate this Case
216 U.S. 610 (1910)
U.S. Supreme Court
David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U.S. 610 (1910)
David Kaufman & Sons Company v. Smith
Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted February 28, 1910
Decided March 7, 1910
216 U.S. 610
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
To give this Court jurisdiction on a direct appeal from, or writ of error to, a court of appeals on the ground of a constitutional question, such question must be real and substantial, and not a mere claim in words.
The questions involved in this case as to the right of the government to collect duties on merchandise coming into the United States from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama, under the Act of March 2, 1905, c. 1311, 33 Stat. 843, have already been settled by the case of Downes v. Bidwell,182 U. S. 244, and the writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
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 a constitutional question, such question must be real and substantial, and not 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 Stat. 843, c. 1311, entitled, "An Act Fixing the Status of Merchandise
Coming 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 U. 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.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.