Nelson Elliott v. Samuel Swartwout’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 federal appellate · 15 district · 36 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 248 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The case put by the other point is where, at the time of payment, notice is given to the collector that the duties are charged too high and that party paying so paid to get possession of his goods, and accompanied by the declaration to the collector that he intended to sue him to recover back the amount erroneously paid, and notice given to him not to pay it over to the treasurer. This question must'be answered in the affirmative, unless the broad proposition can be maintained that no action will lie against the collector to recover back an excess of duties paid him, but that recourse must be had to their government for redress. Such principle would be carrying an exemption to a public officer beyond any protection sanctioned by the principles of law or sound public policy.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Jordan · 246 F. Supp. 2d 1318 - Brother International Corp. v. United States

2. ““But the law never implies a promise to pay unless some duty creates such an obligation, and more especially it never implies a promise to do an act contrary to duty or contrary to law. Collectors under the act referred to were required to pay all moneys received for unascertained duties or for duties paid under protest into the Treasury of the United States, and consequently this Court held that in a case arising under that law, where that duty had been performed by the collector, the law would not imply a promise on his part to pay the same back to the importer, because he was under no obligation to pay the money twice, and to have paid the same -back to the importer in the first place would have been contrary to his official duty as prescribed by an Act of Congress.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Butler v. Carney

3. “laws imposing duties on importations of goods are intended for practical use and application by men engaged in commerce; and hence it has become a settled rule in the interpretation of statutes of this description to construe the language adopted by the legislature, and particularly in the denomination of articles, according to the commercial understanding of-the terms used. This rule is fully recQgnized and established by this court in the case of Two Hundred Chests of Tea, reported in 9 Wheat. 438 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arthur's Executors v. Butterfield