Nix v. Hedden

Supreme Court of the United States · Administrative Law

Administrative Lawtariff classificationordinary meaningtrade meaningcommercial meaningjudicial noticedictionariesvegetables

Facts

The case concerned whether tomatoes, considered as provisions, should be classified as "vegetables" or "fruit" under the Tariff Act of 1883. The only witnesses at trial testified that the terms "vegetables" and "fruit" had no special meaning in trade or commerce different from their dictionary meanings and had the same trade meaning in March 1883 as at the time of trial. Dictionary passages defined "fruit" in botanical terms as the seed of plants or the part containing the seed. The dispute turned on whether those botanical definitions controlled the tariff classification of tomatoes.

Issue

Whether tomatoes, considered as provisions, are classed as "vegetables" or as "fruit" within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1883. More specifically, the question was whether the statute should follow botanical definitions or the ordinary meaning of those words in common speech.

Rule

Absent evidence that statutory terms have acquired a special meaning in trade or commerce, tariff words receive their ordinary meaning. Courts may take judicial notice of that ordinary meaning, and dictionaries may be consulted only as aids to the court's memory and understanding, not as independent evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Cascade Harbor Imports brings fresh avocados through the Port of Seattle. A federal tariff schedule imposes a duty on "vegetables" but exempts "fruit." At trial, all witnesses agree that in produce trade usage, the terms have no special commercial meaning different from ordinary speech, although a botanist testifies that avocados develop from the flower and contain a seed.

How should the court classify the avocados under the tariff schedule?

Explanation. Where no special trade or commercial meaning is shown, tariff words receive their ordinary meaning. The court may disregard botanical classification if common speech controls the statutory term. The majority opinion held that common parlance, not botany, governs in such circumstances. (Derived from Nix v. Hedden (n.d.).)