Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Arthur Vs. Lahey

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1877

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

26 entries 3 linked 23 unlinked
Show
  1. Reiche Vs. Smythe US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1871
  2. SmyThe Vs. Fiske US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1874
  3. Movius Vs. Arthur US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  4. U.S. 112 (1877) U.S. Supreme Court Arthur v. Lahey
    Search
  5. U.S. 112 (1877) Arthur v. Lahey
    Search
  6. id. 550, thread laces are eo nomine subject to a duty of thirty percent ad valorem. 4. Smythe v. Fiske
    Search
  7. Wall. 374, was not intended to overrule Homer v. The
    Search
  8. Collector, 1 Wall. 486, Reiche v. Smythe
    Search
  9. Wall. 162, or the cases referred to in them, nor was Movius v. Arthur
    Search
  10. sued out a writ of error. MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the Court. Referring to the case of Arthur v. Morrison
    Search
  11. later part of the same act, although sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it. Homer v. The
    Search
  12. as to the application of the fifty percent duty under the residuary clause of the Act of 1864. The case of Smythe v. Fiske
    Search
  13. supra, is relied upon by the appellant. That case was not intended to overrule Homer v. The
    Search
  14. Collector or Reiche v. Smythe
    Search
  15. supra, or the cases referred to in those authorities, nor was Movius v. Arthur
    Search
  16. supra, understood to be in conflict with it. Smythe v. Fiske
    Search
  17. eo nomine, and not specifically named in the Act of 1864. That such reference is proper was held in Homer v. The
    Search
  18. acts was thus continued in force. The same principle of reference to the former statute was sustained in Reiche v. Smythe
    Search
  19. In Movius v. Arthur
    Search
  20. See Stewart v. Maxwell
    Search
  21. How. 150, 57 U. S. 160 , and Penington v. Core
    Search
  22. U.S. Supreme Court Arthur v. Lahey
    Search
  23. Homer v. The
    Search
  24. of Arthur v. Morrison
    Search
  25. of Smythe v. Fiske
    Search
  26. and Penington v. Core
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial