Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Delima Vs. Bidwell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 27, 1901

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

77 entries 9 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. Downes Vs. Bidwell US Supreme Court · May 27, 1901
  2. Woodruff Vs. Parham US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1868
  3. Cary Vs. Curtis US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1845
  4. Barney Vs. Watson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  5. Elliott Vs. Swartwout US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1836
  6. Schoenfeld Vs. Hendricks US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1894
  7. Fleming Vs. Page US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
  8. Cross Vs. Harrison US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1853
  9. Keene Vs. Mcdonough US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1834
  10. U.S. 1 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court DeLima v. Bidwell
    Search
  11. U.S. 1 (1901) DeLima v. Bidwell
    Search
  12. and a civil government for Porto Rico, which took effect May 1, 1900. This case was argued with No. 507, Downes v. Bidwell
    Search
  13. No. 501, Dooley v. United
    Search
  14. States, No. 502, Dooley v. United
    Search
  15. Page 182 U. S. 3 No. 509, Armstrong v. United
    Search
  16. Defendant neither gains nor loses by the removal, and the case proceeds as if no such removal had taken place. Cowley v. Northern
    Search
  17. Mansfield Railway Co. v. Swan
    Search
  18. Mexican Nat. Railroad v. Davidson
    Search
  19. in other words, whether they were imported at all as that word is defined in Woodruff v. Parham
    Search
  20. owner could be placed in this position. But we are not without authority upon this point. The case of Elliott v. Swartwout
    Search
  21. more money had been paid to the collector than the law required. It was held by a majority of this Court in Cary v. Curtis
    Search
  22. for duties received by him, and that the act of 1839 furnished the sole remedy. It was said of that case in Arnson v. Murphy
    Search
  23. to refund conferred by the act of 1839, 5 Stat. 349, 727. This act of 1845 was in force, as was decided in Barney v. Watson
    Search
  24. c. 171, 13 Stat. 202, 214, carried into the Revised Statutes as sections 2931 and 3011. In the same case of Arnson v. Murphy
    Search
  25. was taken away by statute, and a remedy given based upon these sections which was exclusive. The decision in Elliott v. Swartwout
    Search
  26. customs cases ( i.e., classification cases), was held to be superseded by the statutes. So, in Schoenfeld v. Hendricks
    Search
  27. Taber v. United
    Search
  28. certain regulations of the executive departments which are supposed to favor this contention. In United States v. Rice
    Search
  29. or to vest a new right in the United States. A case somewhat to the converse of this was that of Fleming v. Page
    Search
  30. port of what was in reality a foreign port. It is not intended to intimate that the cases of United States v. Rice
    Search
  31. and Fleming v. Page
    Search
  32. of the port without a formal cession of such port to the United States. The next case is that of Cross v. Harrison
    Search
  33. an importation into the United States. The plaintiffs proceeded upon the theory, stated in the dictum in Fleming v. Page
    Search
  34. districts had been established in California, and in apparent dissent from the views of the Chief Justice in Fleming v. Page
    Search
  35. different view of the facts connected with the admission of those territories from what had been taken in Fleming v. Page
    Search
  36. was distinctly repudiated with the apparent acquiescence of Chief Justice Taney, who wrote the opinion in Fleming v. Page
    Search
  37. goods carried from a port in a ceded territory directly to New York are subject to duties, since the duties in Cross v. Harrison
    Search
  38. settled by acts of Congress, is, with a single exception, strictly in line with the decision of this Court in Cross v. Harrison
    Search
  39. into New Orleans are manifestly inconsistent with the position subsequently taken by this Court in Cross v. Harrison
    Search
  40. of October 9, 1848, he uses the same language. These letters are cited with approval by this Court in Cross v. Harrison
    Search
  41. foreign, territory. This correspondence with reference to California took place in 1848. The decision in Fleming v. Page
    Search
  42. I understand the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cross v. Harrison
    Search
  43. of Mr. Gallatin's letter, to the present the there is not a shred of authority, except the dictum in Fleming v. Page
    Search
  44. practically overruled in Cross v. Harrison
    Search
  45. to produce a change of nationality for revenue purposes. Possession is not alone sufficient, as was held in Fleming v. Page
    Search
  46. nor is a treaty ceding such territory sufficient without a surrender of possession. Keene v. McDonough
    Search
  47. Pollard v. Kibbe
    Search
  48. Hallett v. Hunt
    Search
  49. nor overturned except for cogent reasons, and unless it be clear that such construction be erroneous. United States v. Johnston
    Search
  50. present, but each of them is the supreme law of the land. As was said by Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. The
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial