Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Buttfield Vs. Bidwell

Buttfield vs Bidwell

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Feb-23-1904
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/89768

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
192 U.S. 498
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Buttfield

Respondent

Bidwell

Excerpt

buttfield v. bidwell - 192 u.s. 498 (1904) u.s. supreme court buttfield v. bidwell, 192 u.s. 498 (1904) buttfield v. bidwell no. 296 argued january 4, 1904 decided february 23, 1904 192 u.s. 498 error to the circuit court of the united states for the southern district of new york syllabus decided on authority of buttfield v. stranahan, ante, p. 192 u. s. 470 . mr. justice white delivered the opinion of the court. this action was brought by buttfield to recover damages sustained by being prevented from importing into the united states a large number of packages of country green teas, being page 192 u. s. 499 four shipments from china. these teas, on reexamination by the board of general appraisers, were found to be inferior in quality to the standard prescribed by law, and bidwell, as collector for the port of new york, so notified buttfield. thereupon the teas were withdrawn from the bonded warehouse, and exported. judgment was entered for bidwell upon a directed verdict in his favor. the right to reversal of that judgment is predicated solely upon the asserted unconstitutionality of the tea inspection act of march 2, 1897. it will not be necessary to determine whether, even supposing the statute to be unconstitutional, a cause of action is stated in any of the four counts of the complaint below. the statute having been held to be valid in the opinion just announced in buttfield v. stranahan, the judgment must be and is hereby affirmed. mr. justice brewer and mr. justice brown took no part in the decision of this case.

Full Judgment

Buttfield v. Bidwell - 192 U.S. 498 (1904)
U.S. Supreme Court Buttfield v. Bidwell, 192 U.S. 498 (1904)

Buttfield v. Bidwell

No. 296

Argued January 4, 1904

Decided February 23, 1904

192 U.S. 498

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SYLLABUS

Decided on authority of Buttfield v. Stranahan, ante, p. 192 U. S. 470 .

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought by Buttfield to recover damages sustained by being prevented from importing into the United States a large number of packages of Country green teas, being

Page 192 U. S. 499

four shipments from China. These teas, on reexamination by the Board of General Appraisers, were found to be inferior in quality to the standard prescribed by law, and Bidwell, as collector for the port of New York, so notified Buttfield. Thereupon the teas were withdrawn from the bonded warehouse, and exported. Judgment was entered for Bidwell upon a directed verdict in his favor. The right to reversal of that judgment is predicated solely upon the asserted unconstitutionality of the Tea Inspection Act of March 2, 1897. It will not be necessary to determine whether, even supposing the statute to be unconstitutional, a cause of action is stated in any of the four counts of the complaint below. The statute having been held to be valid in the opinion just announced in Buttfield v. Stranahan, the judgment must be and is hereby

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE BROWN took no part in the decision of this case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial