Homer v. The Collector
Annotate this Case
68 U.S. 486 (1863)
U.S. Supreme Court
Homer v. The Collector, 68 U.S. 1 Wall. 486 486 (1863)
Homer v. The Collector
68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 486
Under the Tariff Act of 1846, as amended by the Tariff Act of 1857, almonds are subject to a duty of 30 p.c. ad valorem.
The Tariff Act of 1857, which was an act reducing duties, provided by its first section, that in lieu of the duties then existing, there should be imposed upon the articles in schedule B of the Tariff Act of 1846, a duty of 30 p.c.; and upon those in schedules C, E, and G, of said act, the duties of 24, 15, and 8 p.c. respectively, "with such exceptions as are hereinafter made."
The Tariff Act of 1846 had imposed a duty of 40 p.c. upon the articles enumerated in schedule B, among which were "almonds" (by name), "currants," "dates," "figs,"
"prunes," "raisins." It had imposed a duty of 30 p.c. upon those enumerated in schedule C, among which articles were "grapes," "nuts, not otherwise provided for," "plums;" and a duty of 20 p.c. upon those enumerated in schedule E, including "bananas," "cocoa-nuts," "fruit, green or ripe, not otherwise provided for," "oranges," "lemons and limes," "pineapples."
By this first section, therefore, of the Tariff Act of 1857, the duties on almonds, currants, dates, figs, prunes, and raisins, were reduced from 40 to 30 p.c.; grapes, plums, "nuts not otherwise provided for," to 24 p.c.; bananas, oranges, lemons &c., and "fruit, green or ripe, not otherwise provided for," in the statute of 1846, to 15 p.c.; unless these articles or any of them should come under the "exceptions" afterwards made. The second section of the act of 1857 did make exceptions in favor of various articles, among them "fruit, green, ripe, or dried," which it enacted should be transferred to schedule G, thus making them liable to a duty of 8 p.c. No particular fruits were named in this section.
Tariff acts, prior to that of 1846 -- that is to say, the tariff acts of 1804, 1816, 1832, 1842 -- had all laid a duty on "almonds" by name.
In this state of the tariff acts, the plaintiff had made an importation of almonds, on which the defendant, Collector of the Port of Boston, charged 30 p.c. ad valorem. The plaintiff, considering that almonds were within the exception of "dried fruit," and so chargeable with but 8 p.c. ad valorem, paid the larger duty under protest, and brought suit to recover the difference. In the course of the trial, the following questions were raised:
1st. Whether by law almonds were subject to a duty of 30 p.c. or of 8 p.c. only.
2d. Whether evidence should be admitted to prove that before and at the time of the passing of the Tariff Act of 1857, almonds were fruit, green, ripe, or dried, according to the commercial understanding of these terms in the markets of this country.
3d. Whether it should be left to the jury to determine
whether almonds were fruit, green, ripe, or dried, according to the commercial understanding of these terms in our own markets when the Tariff Act of 1857 was passed.
A certificate of division of opinion in the judges as to these points brought the same questions here.