Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
ARMSTRONG v. UNITED STATES
182 U.S. 24345 L. Ed. 1086·Supreme Court of the United States·1901
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
ARMSTRONG v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
No. 509.
Argued January 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1901.
Decided May 27, 1901.
Dooley v. United States, ante, 222, followed.
This was a petition to the Court of Claims by a British subject, to recover duties exacted by the collector of the port of San Juan, and paid under protest, upon goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth,' produce, or manufacture of the United States, between August 12, 1898, and December'5, 1899.
The same demurrer was filed and the same judgment was-entered as in the preceding case.
Mr. Alphonso Hart and Mr. John G. Carlisle for appellant. Mr. John C. Chaney and Mr. Charles C. Leeds were on Mr. .Hart's brief.
Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Attorney General for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Brown]
Mr. Justice Brown
delivered the opinion of the court.
This ease is controlled by the ease of Dooley v. United States, No. 501, just decided. So far as the duties were exacted upon goods imported prior to the ratification of the treaty of April 11, 1899, they were properly exacted. So far as they were imposed upon importations after that date and prior to December 5,1899, plaintiff is entitled to recover them back.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is therefore reversed and the case remanded to that court for fv/rther proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.