This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The issue before the court was whether tomatoes, considered as provisions, are to be classed as 'vegetables' or as 'fruit,' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1883. P sued D to recover the duties P paid on tomatoes. P claimed tomatoes were fruit and were not subject to the tariff. Witnesses testified that neither 'vegetables' nor 'fruit' had any special meaning in trade or commerce, different from that given in the dictionaries; and that they had the same meaning in trade to-day that they had in March 1883. The dictionaries read from defined the word 'fruit' as the seed of plants, or that part of plants which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed. All the definitions had no tendency to show that tomatoes are 'fruit,' as distinguished from 'vegetables,' in common speech, or within the meaning of the Tariff Act. Both witnesses called had 30 years in the business selling fruit and vegetables and both stated that the words fruit and vegetable had no special meaning in commerce. The court directed a verdict to D and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.