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.
INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE COMPANY v. STRANAHAN; SAME v. SAME, 1909 — 214 U.S. 344 · caselaw · US
General
INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE COMPANY v. STRANAHAN; SAME v. SAME
214 U.S. 34453 L. Ed. 1024·Supreme Court of the United States·1909
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
INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE COMPANY v. STRANAHAN. SAME v. SAME.
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR. THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
Nos. 510, 511.
Argued January 11, 12, 1909.
Decided June 1, 1909.
Decided on the authority of the' preceding case.
The facts are stated.in the opinion.
Mr. William G. Choate and Mr. Lucius H. Beers for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Wade H. Ellis, Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Mr. Henry L. Stimson, Mr. Winfred T. Demson and Mr E. P. Grosvenor were on the brief for defendant in error.
For abstracts of argument see pages 322-329, ante.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice White]
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
These writs of error are prosecuted to obtain the reversal of judgments entered in favor of the United States in actions brought to recover back sums paid as penalties imposed and collected under authority of § 9 of the Immigration Act of March 3,1903. One action concerned penalties exacted before and. the other related to a penalty which attached after the promulgation by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor of a certain rule of procedure known as circular No. 58. . As the controversies in these cases are. of. the same nature as that presented by the record in Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited, v. The United States, No. 509, just decided, ante, p. 320, and as the principles which controlled the decision in that case are here absolutely decisive, the judgments in these cases must be, and they are,
Affirmed.