Saltonstall v. Birtwell (150 U.S. 417)/Opinion of the Court

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court

United States Supreme Court

150 U.S. 417

Saltonstall  v.  Birtwell


We are of opinion that the facts set forth in the special findings are not sufficient to support the judgment. The findings do 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,) the parties claimed respectively. The opinion might help the findings out, but cannot be resorted to for that purpose. Dickinson v. Bank, 16 Wall. 250.

We are unable, therefore, to direct judgment for either party. Insurance Co. v. Stark, 6 Cranch, 268, 273; Harden v. Fisher, 1 Wheat. 300, 303; Barnes v. Williams, 11 Wheat. 415; McArthur v. Porter, 1 Pet. 627; Ex parte French, 91 U.S. 423; Ryan v. Carter, 93 U.S. 78, 81; Hodges v. Easton, 106 U.S. 408, 411, 1 Sup. Ct. 307; Ft. Scott v. Hickman, 112 U.S. 150, 165, 5 Sup. Ct. 56; Spring Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U.S. 541, 545, 546, 6 Sup. Ct. 498; Allen v. Bank, 120 U.S. 20, 30, 40, 7 Sup. Ct. 460; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U.S. 192, 10 Sup. Ct. 57; Lloyd v. McWilliams, 137 U.S. 576, 11 Sup. Ct. 173.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).