Nix v. Hedden - Wikipedia
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously held that tomatoes should be classified as vegetables rather than fruits for purposes of tariffs, imports and customs.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) - Justia US Supreme Court …
Hedden No. 137 Submitted April 24, 1893 Decided May 10, 1893 149 U.S. 304 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The court takes judicial notice of the ordinary meaning of all words in our tongue, and dictionaries are admitted not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understandin...
NIX v. HEDDEN , 149 U.S. 304 (1893) - FindLaw Caselaw
At law. Action by John Nix, John W. Nix, George W. Nix, and Frank W. Nix against Edward L. Hedden, collector of the port of New York, to recover back duties paid under protest. Judgment on verdict directed for defendant. 39 Fed. Rep. 109. Plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 | Casetext Search + Citator
In Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 37 L.Ed. 745, 13 S.Ct. 881, the question presented was whether tomatoes were to be classed as fruit or vegetables under the tariff act. Summary of this case from State v. Northwest Magnesite Co.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893): Case Brief Summary
In 1886, Nix (plaintiff) imported tomatoes from the West Indies to New York City. Hedden (defendant), the collector of the Port of New York, collected import duties on the tomatoes in accordance with the Tariff Act of 1883 (Act). The Act imposed a duty on …
Nix v. Hedden - Wikisource, the free online library
Feb 21, 2024 · Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a tomato was classified as a fruit or a vegetable under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, which required a tax to be paid on imported vegetables, but not fruit.
Nix v. Hedden - Case Brief - Wiki Law School
Sep 21, 2024 · Should courts apply the scientifically correct meaning of a term [in botany, a tomato = berry = fruit], or the term's everyday normally accepted meaning? Nix argued that tomato is a fruit in botany. Therefore, the tariff didn't apply to his tomatoes.
Legislation and Regulation : Nix v. Hedden | H2O - Open Casebook
Nix v. Hedden is a classic of staturoy interpretation. It presents the court squarely with the age-old question in life and law: is the tomato a fruit or a vegetable?
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 13 S. Ct. 881, 37 L. Ed. 745, 1893 U.S ...
NIX v. HEDDEN. No. 137. Supreme Court of United States. Submitted April 24, 1893. Decided May 10, 1893. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. *306 Mr. Edwin B. Smith for plaintiff in error. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for defendant in error. MR.
NIX v. HEDDEN. Statement of the Case. Tis was an action, brought February 4, 1887, against the collector of the port of New York, to recover back duties, paid under protest, on tomatoes imported by the plaintiff from the West Indies in the spring of 1886, which the collector assessed
- Some results have been removed