Saltonstall v. Birtwell

Supreme Court of the United States December 4, 1893

Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 U.S. 417 (1893)

14 S. Ct. 169; 37 L. Ed. 1128; 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2391

Opinion of the Court

Mjr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that the facts set .forth in the special findings are not sufficient to support the judgment. • The-findings (jo not show what the collector charged the plaintiff; nor sufficiently describe the articles imported; nor does it appear from the record under what provisions of the tariff act of-March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 488, c. 121, the parties claimed - respectively. The opinion might help the findings out, but cannot be resorted to for that purpose. Dickinson v. Planters' Bank, 16 Wall. 250.

We.are unable, therefore, to direct judgment for either party. Chesapeake Ins. Co. v. Stark, 6 Cranch. 268, 273; *420Harden v. Fisher, 1 Wheat. 300, 303; Barnes v. Williams, 11 Wheat. 415; McArthur v. Porter’s Lessee, 1 Pet. 626; Ex parte French, 91 U. S. 423; Ryan v. Carter, 93 U. S. 78, 81; Hodges v. Easton, 106 U. S. 408, 411; Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112 U. S. 150, 165; Tyre & Spring Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U. S. 541, 545, 546 ; Allen v. St. Louis Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 30, 40; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192; Lloyd v. McWilliams, 137 U. S. 576.

Judgment reversed and cañóse remamdedfor a new trial.

Reference

Full Case Name: SALTONSTALL v. BIRTWELL
Cited By: 11 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Hndings of fact in an action brought to recover duties on importations paid under protest, which do not show what the collector charged the .plaintiff, nor sufficiently describe the articles imported, and a record . which fails'to show under what provisions' of the tariff act the parties claimed respectively, leave this court unable to direct judgment -for either party. In such case the opinion of the court below cannot be resorted to to help the findings out.