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.
MERRITT, Collector, v. PARK & Another, 1883 — 108 U.S. 109 · caselaw · US
General
MERRITT, Collector, v. PARK & Another
108 U.S. 10927 L. Ed. 669·Supreme Court of the United States·1883
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
MERRITT, Collector, v. PARK & Another.
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OR THE UNITED STATES . FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OR NEW YORK.
Decided March 19th, 1883.
Customs Duties,
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 SO percent, ad valorem on the bottles, in addition to a specific duty of 35 cents a gaEon on the beer, confirmed and appEed to this case..
The facts are all in the opinion..
■Mr. SoKcit&r- General Phillips for collector.
Mr. iEd/wmd Hartley and Mr. Walter H. Colemcm for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Me. Justice Blatchford]
Me. 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 below exacted a specific* duty of 35 cents a gallon on the beer, .and also a duty of 30 per cent, 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 ivas there held that such duty on the bottles, in addition to such duty on the beer and ale contained in them, was a laAvful duty. That decision governs the present case, and the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court, Avith directions to grant a new trial.