Supreme Court of the United States, 1887

Hartranft v. Winters

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 2, 1887 · Blatchford

121 U.S. 616; 7 S. Ct. 1244; 30 L. Ed. 1015; 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2078; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2507 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff in error., Mr. Frank P. Prichmd for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Taylor v. Treat (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1907)
In re Smith (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio 1894)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action by Anton Winters, brought in a state court of Pennsylvania and removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the collector of customs for the District of'Philadelphia. . The proceedings in it, and the questions arising, are in all respects the same as those in the case of Hartranft v. Wiegmann, just decided, the only difference being that in this case there were no shells called “green snails” or “mottoes” or “ Turk’s caps ” or “ magpies ” or “ trocus,” and that there were *617 shells called “rose murex,” “motto cowries,” “banded snails,” “Japan ears,” “turbo shells,” “red ears,” and “pearl snails.”

The same conclusion is arrived at as in the Wiegmann case, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.