Supreme Court of the United States, 1888

Kelly v. Hedden

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 9, 1888 · Field

124 U.S. 196; 8 S. Ct. 459; 31 L. Ed. 388; 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1853 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. A. J. Willard and Mr. H. E. Tremain for plaintiff in error. Mr. M. W. Tyler was with them on their brief., Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Lueder (N.J. 1977)
State v. Lueder (N.J. 1977)
Board of County Commissioners of Dade County v. Aerolineas Peruanasa, S. A. (5th Cir. 1962)
United States v. Domestic Fuel Corporation (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1934)
Hawaiian Trust Co. v. Smith (Haw. 1929)
Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Commission (D.C. Cir. 1938)
Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Commission (D.C. Cir. 1938)
Thingvalla Line v. United States (Court of Claims 1889)

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

Me. Justice Field

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case, except in one particular, presents the-same questions considered and determined in Whitney v. Robertson. The exceptional circumstance is this, that the act of 1883, under which the duties were levied and collected, to recover which the action is brought, declares that nothing in it “ shall in any way change or impair the force and effect of any treaty between the United States and any other government, or any laws passed in pursuance of or for the execution of any such ■«treaty,, so long as such treaty shall remain in force in respect of the subjects embraced .in this aet.” 22 Stat. 525. The most that can be conceded to this provision is, that it leaves a previous treaty relating to the same subjects unaffected by the act. Our observations in the former case, as to the effect of subsequent legislation in conflict with the stipulations of a treaty, are therefore inapplicable to the present case. But all other considerations as to specific exemptions in return for special concéssions remain, in answer to the alleged contention *197 of the plaintiffs that articles, the produce and manufacture of the island of San Domingo should he admitted free of duty because similar articles, the produce and manufacture of the Hawaiian Islands, are thus admitted.

Judgment affirmed.

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