Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

216 U.S. 610

Docket No. 668.

David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith

Supreme Court of the United States

Submitted February 28, 1910.

Decided March 7, 1910.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1910-03-07

<p>To give this court jurisdiction on a direct appeal from, or writ of error to, a Circuit Court on the ground of a constitutional question, such question must be real and substantial, and not a mere claim in words.</p> <p>The questions involved in this ease as to the right of thé Government to collect duties on merchandise coming into the United States from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama,- under the act of March 2, 1905, c. 1311, 33 Stat. 843, have already been settled by the case of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U: S. 244, and the writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“126. Imports from Canal Zone. All laws affecting imports of articles, goods, wares, and merchandise and entry of persons into the United States from foreign countries shall apply to articles, goods, wares, and merchandise and persons coming from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama, and seeking entry into any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 7 Cust. Ct. 40 - Post Exchange v. United States

“In view of the treaty between the Republic of Panama and the United States [33 Stat. at L. 2234], and the various acts of Congress relating to such zone, the principles laid down in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 , [45 L. ed. 1088, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770,] were decisive of the questions raised herein.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 7 Cust. Ct. 40 - Post Exchange v. United States

Relies on Downes v. Bidwell

Cited in Case Law’s definition of “Substantial constitutional question (for jurisdiction)”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1910-03-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1994 · most notably Doris Griffith v. State of Connecticut (1910), Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham (1920)

10 federal appellate ·

160191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Messrs. Frederick B. Campbell, George Whitefield Betts, Jr., George W. Hinckley, and Wallace, Butler, & Brown for plaintiff in error.

Solicitor General Bowers and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lloyd for defendant in error.

Per Curiam:

¶1

It is established that to give this court jurisdiction on a direct appeal from, or writ of error to, a circuit court, on the ground of a constitutional question, such question must be real and substantial, and not a mere claim in words.

¶2

This was an action brought against the collector of customs for the recovery of duties paid under the act of March 2, 1905, 33 Stat. at L. 843, chap. 1311, entitled, 'An Act Fixing the Status of Merchandise Coming into the United States from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama,' providing 'that all laws affecting imports of articles, goods, wares, and merchandise, and entry of persons into the United States from foreign countries, shall apply to articles, goods, wares, and merchandise, and persons coming from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama, and seeking entry into any state or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia.'

¶3

Plaintiff claimed that the merchandise in question was not liable to the duties thus paid, but the circuit court ruled that, in view of the treaty between the Republic of Panama and the United States [33 Stat. at L. 2234], and the various acts of Congress relating to such zone, the principles laid down in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 45 L. ed. 1088, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770, were decisive of the questions raised herein. We concur in that conclusion, and dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.

¶4

Writ of error dismissed.

/216/us/610 · .json · Public domain