Supreme Court of the United States, 1910

David Kaufman & Sons Company v. Smith

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 7, 1910 · Per Curiam

216 U.S. 610; 54 L. Ed. 636; 30 S. Ct. 419; 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1932 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Frederick B. Campbell and Mr. George Whitefield Betts, Jr., for the plaintiff in error., The Attorney General, The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Lloyd for the defendant in error:

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Helen Washington, J. D. Richard Green, Melvin Jay Quick and Glenn C. Webb (7th Cir. 1978)
Post Exchange v. United States (United States Customs Court 1941)
United States v. Jewel Rose Hyde Patricia Yvonne Gray Karen Boothe, A/K/A Karen Boothe-Waller, A/K/A Karen Ann Marie Boothe (3d Cir. 1994)
Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham (Supreme Court of the United States 1920)
Ignatius Timothy Tribich Lincoln v. James M. Power, Marshal, Etc (Supreme Court of the United States 1916)
Lincoln v. Power (Supreme Court of the United States 1916)
Rixey ex rel. Rixey v. Cox (Supreme Court of the United States 1914)
Perryman v. Coleman (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
Globe Printing Co. of St. Louis v. Cook (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
Home for Destitute Children v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
Box Elder Power & Light Co. v. Brigham City (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
Yeung How v. North (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
Cassidy v. Colorado (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
Beecham v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
J. A. Scriven Co. v. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
Beecham v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
Moore v. New Jersey (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)

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

Per Curiam:

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 á constitutional question, such question must be real and substantial, and hot a mere claim 'in. words.

This was an action brought against the Collector of Customs for the recovery of duties paid under the act of March 2, 1905, ' 33 Stats. 843, entitled, “ An act fixing the status of merchan *611 dise coining 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. ”

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, and the various acts of Congress relating to such Zone, the principles laid down in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 II. S. 244, were decisive of the questions raised herein. We concur in that conclusion and dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.

Writ of error dismissed.

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