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/153/38/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/153/38/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Spalding v. Castro, 153 U.S. 38 (1894)
Spalding v. Castro
No. 297
Submitted March 19, 1894
Decided April 18, 1894
153 U.S. 38
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Syllabus
Seeberger v. Castro, ante, 153 U. S. 32, followed.
A ruling by the court below, correct when applied to this case, is sustained without regard to its correctness as a general proposition.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is covered by that of the same person against Seeberger, collector, just decided. The tobacco was like that imported in the former case, and was likewise assessed. There was due protest by the importer, seasonable appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, and, on his adverse ruling, a timely suit. The case was tried by a jury. The court instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the tobacco in question required to have labor expended upon it in order to fit it for consumption, then it was unmanufactured tobacco, as claimed by the plaintiff, etc. Excepting to this ruling, the case was brought here. Whatever may have been the correctness of the instruction as a general proposition, it was correct when applied to the case in hand. Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 660. The judgment is
Affirmed.
