TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Quimby

United States v. Quimby, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 408 (1867)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 18, 1867
Judges
Nelson
Citations
71 U.S. 40818 L. Ed. 3974 Wall. 4081866 U.S. LEXIS 889
Syllabus
Split white-ash timber, chiefly designed to be used in the manufacturo of long shovel handles, the growth and product of the Province of Canada, and imported from there into the United States, were not free from duty under the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854; but were chargeable with a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem, under the twenty-fourth section of the act of March 2d, 1861.
Summary
This suit was brought to recover the duties on “ split timbers ” imported from Canada into the United States, and claimed to be exempt under the Reciprocity Treaty, as in the case just disposed of. The treaty exempts from duty 11 timber and lumber of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmanufactured, in whole or in- part.” The articles consisted of six hundred and sixteen cords of split white-ash timber, chiefly designed to be used in the manufacture of long shovel handles. The main question was whether the said timber was liable to duty, or whether it was made free of duty by the Reciprocity Treaty. Same counsel as in the United States v. Hathaway, just preceding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Nelson

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

The case falls within the construction of the treaty in the case of the United States v. Hathaway.

The article, we think, is chargeable with a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem, under the twenty-fourth section of the act of March 2d, 1861, which imposes this duty “ on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part,” not otherwise provided for.

The court answer the question, in the certificate of division of opinion, In the aeeiRMAtive.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1902: 11934: 11941: 11978: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. American Sugar Refining Co.108 La. 603 (1902)
  2. Brea Canon Oil Co. v. Commissioner29 B.T.A. 1134 (B.T.A. 1934)
  3. Light v. Schmidt269 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
  4. Shore Fishery, Inc. v. Board of Review of New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Commission21 A.2d 634 (N.J. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Light v. Schmidt269 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
  2. Shore Fishery, Inc. v. Board of Review of New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Commission21 A.2d 634 (N.J. 1941)
  3. Brea Canon Oil Co. v. Commissioner29 B.T.A. 1134 (B.T.A. 1934)
  4. State v. American Sugar Refining Co.108 La. 603 (1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list