Seeberger v. Castro
This was an action by Daniel Castro against Anthony F. Seeberger, collector of the port of Chicago, to recover certain duties paid under protest. There was judgment for plaintiff in the court below (40 Fed. 531), and the collector sued out this writ of error.

The defendant in error (plaintiff below) sued to recover duties which he claimed had been illegally exacted on certain importations of tobacco. The case, by stipulation, was submitted without the intervention of a jury. The court found the facts to be as follows: The Rayner & Baxter Cigar Company imported the tobacco in question, which consisted of 'clippings from the ends of cigars, and pieces broken from the tobacco of which cigars are manufactured, in the process of such manufacture, the said clippings and pieces not being fit for any use in the condition in which the same are imported, and their only use being to be manufactured into cigarettes and smoking tobacco.' The collector assessed upon the tobacco a duty of 40 cents per pound, under section 2502, c. 121, of the act of 1883, which took effect on March 3, 1883, including it within the terms of the fifth paragraph of Schedule F of that act, which reads as follows: 'Tobacco, manufactured, of all descriptions, and stem tobacco, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, forty cents per pound.'

The importer seasonably protested, contending that the tobacco was not dutiable under the above paragraph of Schedule F, but was so under the seventh paragraph of the same, which reads as follows: 'Tobacco, unmanufactured, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, thirty per centum ad valorem.'

From an adverse ruling of the collector, an appeal was duly brought to the secretary of the treasury. Pending this appeal, the importer sold the tobacco, in bond, to the plaintiff below, who, upon the affirmance of the collector's ruling by the secretary, paid the duties, and in due time brought this suit to recover.

Upon the facts thus found the defendant asked the court to rule-First, that the plaintiff, as purchaser pending the decision of the secretary, could not maintain the suit; second, that the defendant was, as a matter of law, entitled to a judgment. Reserving these questions, which were adversely decided, the defendant brings the case here.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Justice WHITE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision