Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/108/109/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/108/109/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Merritt v. Park, 108 U.S. 109 (1883)
Merritt v. Park
Decided March 19, 1883
108 U.S. 109
I
N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITEDSTATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
The decision of this Court in Schmidt v. Badger, 107 U. S. 85, that, under the statutory provisions in question in this case, the proper duty on the importation of glass bottles containing beer was a duty of 30 percent ad valorem on the bottles, in addition to a specific duty of 35 cents a gallon on the beer, confirmed and applied to this case.
The facts are all in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit to recover back duties exacted by the plaintiff in error, as collector of the port of New York, on glass bottles imported in March, 1879, from London. The bottles contained beer, and the defendant exacted a specific duty of 35 cents a gallon on the beer and also a duty of 30 percent ad valorem on the bottles. The bottles were the ordinary ale bottles of commerce. The circuit court directed a verdict for the plaintiffs, and they had a judgment, to review which the collector brought this writ of error.
The question involved is the same, and arose under the same statutory provisions, as in the case of Schmidt v. Badger, 107 U. S. 85. It was there held that such duty on the bottles, in addition to such duty on the beer and ale contained in them, was a lawful duty. That decision governs the present case, and the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to grant a new trial.
