Dooley v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIROUXT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. This was an action begun in the Circuit Court as a Court of Claims by the firm of Dooley, Smith & Co., to recover duties exacted of them and paid under protest to the collector of the port of San Juan, Porto Eico, upon merchandise imported into that port from the port of New York after May 1, 1900, and since the Foraker act.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIROUXT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. This was an action begun in the Circuit Court as a Court of Claims by the firm of Dooley, Smith & Co., to recover duties exacted of them and paid under protest to the collector of the port of San Juan, Porto Eico, upon merchandise imported into that port from the port of New York after May 1, 1900, and since the Foraker act. This act requires all merchandise “ coming into Porto Eico from the United States ” to be “ entered at the several ports of entry upon payment of fifteen per centum of the duties which…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brown
This case raises the question of the constitutionality of the *153Foraker act, so far as it fixes the duties to be paid upon merchandise imported into Porto Rico from the port of New York. The validity of this requirement is attacked upon the ground of its violation of that clause of the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 9) declaring that “ no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.”
While the words “import” and “export” are sometimes used to denote goods passing from one State to another, the word “ import,” in connection with the provision of the Constitution that “ no State…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brown v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Downes v. BidwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- De Lima v. BidwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Brown v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Woodruff v. ParhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Prudential Insurance v. BenjaminSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Graham & Foster v. GoodcellSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Hooven & Allison Co. v. EvattSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States v. Heinszen & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- United States v. HvoslefSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.