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/192/498/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/192/498/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Buttfield v. Bidwell, 192 U.S. 498 (1904)
Buttfield v. Bidwell
No. 296
Argued January 4, 1904
Decided February 23, 1904
192 U.S. 498
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Decided on authority of Buttfield v. Stranahan, ante, p. 192 U. S. 470.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought by Buttfield to recover damages sustained by being prevented from importing into the United States a large number of packages of Country green teas, being
four shipments from China. These teas, on reexamination by the Board of General Appraisers, were found to be inferior in quality to the standard prescribed by law, and Bidwell, as collector for the port of New York, so notified Buttfield. Thereupon the teas were withdrawn from the bonded warehouse, and exported. Judgment was entered for Bidwell upon a directed verdict in his favor. The right to reversal of that judgment is predicated solely upon the asserted unconstitutionality of the Tea Inspection Act of March 2, 1897. It will not be necessary to determine whether, even supposing the statute to be unconstitutional, a cause of action is stated in any of the four counts of the complaint below. The statute having been held to be valid in the opinion just announced in Buttfield v. Stranahan, the judgment must be and is hereby
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE BROWN took no part in the decision of this case.
