153 U.S. 38 - Spalding v. Castro — 153 U.S. 38

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2000

14 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

¶2Seeberger v. Castro, ante, 32, followed.

¶3A ruling by the court below, correct when applied to this case, is sustained without regard to its correctness as á general proposition.

¶4 *39The case is stated in the opinion.

¶5Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney for plaintiff in error.

¶6No appearance for defendant in error.

¶7Mr. Justice White

¶8delivered th,e opinion of the court.

¶9This case is covered by that of the same person against Seeberger, collector, just decided. The tobacco was like that imported in the former case, and was likewise assessed. There was due protest by the importer, seasonable appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, and, on his adverse ruling, a timely suit. The case wak tried by a jury. The court instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the tobacco in question required to have labor expended upon it in order to fit it for consumption, then it was unmanufactured, tobacco, as claimed by the plaintiff, etc. Excepting to this ruling, the case was brought here. Whatever may have been the correctness of the instruction as a general proposition, it was correct when applied to the case in hand. Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 660. The judgment is

¶10Affirmed.