Macy v. Loeb
| Decision Date | 12 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | 267. |
| Citation | 205 F. 727 |
| Parties | MACY et al. v. LOEB, Revenue Collector. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Sternberg Jacobson & Pollock, of New York City (H. L. Jacobson, of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Henry A. Wise, U.S. Atty., and A. S. Pratt, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of New York City, for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
In the opinion of a majority of the court the decision in Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, 24 Sup.Ct 349, 48 L.Ed. 525, is controlling. Congress has undoubtedly the power to exclude all teas, or to admit them under the most arbitrary regulations it may choose to prescribe. By the act the whole matter is turned over to administrative officers, with no review of the facts in the court.
The scheme is a simple one. The Secretary of the Treasury fixes standards. He appoints examiners, who are to decide whether teas brought here are up to standard. The examiner has before him (section 4) a standard sample, and samples of the importation accompanied by a sworn statement of the importer or consignee that they represent the true quality of the invoices. He then tests them 'according to the usages and customs of the tea trade, including the testing of an infusion of the same in boiling water and, if necessary chemical analysis. ' Section 7. This examination does not contemplate that the importer shall in any way participate in it or even be present when it is made. If the examiner finds that 'in his opinion' the sample is not up to the standard, the importer shall be immediately notified. Section 5. He may, if he pleases, protest against the finding whereupon the matter in dispute is referred for a decision to a Board of 3 General Appraisers. Section 6. In the event of such protest samples of the tea in dispute are put up and sealed by the examiner, in the presence of the importer, if he so desires, and transmitted to the board together with a copy of the finding of the examiner setting forth the cause of condemnation and also the claim or ground of protest of the importer relating to the same. Section 8. The board then proceeds to re-examine. The only requirements of the act as to such re-examination are that it shall be by the board 'according to the usages and customs of the tea trade including an infusion of the same in boiling water and, if necessary, chemical analysis' (section 7), and that the board shall be authorized, when necessary, to obtain the advice of persons skilled in the examination of teas (section 8).
We find nothing in the act which prescribes or even implies that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
§2.2 Adulteration and Misbranding Under 1906 Act
...the business of the plaintiff and deny the consumer of the product that he desired, and hence declared invalid; but see, Macy v. Loeb, 205 F. 727, regarding the Tea Importation Act, a tea is required to obtain the finding from the examiner that it is up to their opinion of the standard.[99]......
-
Table of Cases
...N.W.2d 687 (Iowa 2001), §1.6 Linsangan v. Gov't of Guam, Civil Case No. 19-00011, at *8 (D. Guam Sept. 6, 2019), §12.3.2 M Macy v. Loeb, 205 F. 727, §2.2 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), §§1.2.1.1, 1.4.2 Med. Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCbD.com, 6 Cal. App. 5th 602 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016),......