Carlos Armstrong v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 May 1901 |
| Docket Number | No. 509,509 |
| Parties | CARLOS ARMSTRONG, Appt. , v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Alphonso Hart, John C. Chaney, John G. Carlisle, and Charles C. Leeds for appellant.
Solicitor General Richards and Attorney General Griggs for appellee.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:
This was a petition to the court of claims by a British subject, to recover duties exacted by the collector of the port of San Juan, and paid under protest, upon goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, between August 12, 1898, and December 5, 1899.
The same demurrer was filed and the same judgment was entered as in the preceding case.
Messrs. Alphonso Hart, John C. Chaney, John G. Carlisle, and Charles C. Leeds for appellant.
This case is controlled by the case of Dooley v. United States (No. 501), just decided, 181 U. S. ——, ante, 762, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 762. So far as the duties were exacted upon goods imported prior to the ratification of the treaty of April 11, 1899, they were properly exacted. So far as they were imposed upon importations after that date and prior to December 5, 1899, plaintiff is entitled to recover them back.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is therefore reversed, and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mercado-Flores
...743, 45 L.Ed. 1041 (1901) ; Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 21 S.Ct. 762, 45 L.Ed. 1074 (1901) ; Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243, 21 S.Ct. 827, 45 L.Ed. 1086 (1901) ; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 S.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901) ; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197, 23 S......
-
United States v. Cotto-Flores
...from Puerto Rico ceased with the ratification of the peace treaty between the United States and Spain); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243, 21 S.Ct. 827, 45 L.Ed. 1086 (1901) (invalidating tariffs imposed on goods exported from the United States to Puerto Rico after the ratification o......
-
Rabang v. I.N.S.
...743, 45 L.Ed. 1041 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 21 S.Ct. 762, 45 L.Ed. 1074 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243, 21 S.Ct. 827, 45 L.Ed. 1086 (1901); and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 S.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901). The holdings of the Insular Cases were......
-
Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Kanahele
...1, 21 S.Ct. 743, 45 L.Ed. 1041 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 21 S.Ct. 762, 45 L.Ed.1074 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 21 S.Ct. 827, 45 L.Ed. 1086 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 S.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901); see McKay, 35 Law & Contemp.Probs. at 31.22 T......
-
Third-Class Citizens: Unequal Protection Within United States Territories.
...Crossman v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901); Dooley v. United States (Dooley I), 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Huus v. N.Y. & P.R. S.S. Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901); Dooley v. United States (Dooley II), 183 U......
-
Trying to fit an oval shaped island into a square constitution: arguments for Puerto Rican statehood.
...182 U.S. at 221-22. (43.) Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901). (44.) Id. at 230. (45.) Id.; see also Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901) (presenting the same issues as Dooley). The war power includes the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war and maintain a......
-
Birthright citizenship in the United Kingdom and the United States: a comparative analysis of the common law basis for granting citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants.
...8, cl. 1. (109.) See DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Armstong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). The holdings of the Insular Cases were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Verdu......
-
WHAT IS A "STATE"? THE INCONSISTENT CONSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES.
...182 U.S. 1 (1901); Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Huus v. N.Y. & P.R. S.S. Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901). However, some jurists and scholars i......