Everything about Nix V Hedden totally explained
Nix v. Hedden,
149 U.S. 304 (
1893), was a case in which the
United States Supreme Court addressed whether a
tomato was classified as a
fruit or a
vegetable under the
Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, which required a tax to be paid on imported vegetables, but not fruit. The case was filed as an action by John Nix, John W. Nix, George W. Nix, and Frank W. Nix against Edward L. Hedden, collector of the port of
New York, to recover back duties paid under protest.
Botanically a tomato is a fruit. The court, however, unanimously ruled in favor of the defendant, that the Tariff Act used the ordinary meaning of the words "fruit" and "vegetable"—where a tomato is classified as a vegetable—not the technical botanical meaning.
The case
At the trial the
plaintiff's counsel, after reading in
evidence definitions of the words 'fruit' and 'vegetables' from
Webster's Dictionary,
Worcester's Dictionary, and the
Imperial Dictionary, called two
witnesses, who had been for 30 years in the business of selling fruit and vegetables, and asked them, after hearing these definitions, to say whether these words had "any special meaning in
trade or
commerce, different from those read."
During testimony, one witness testified that in regard to the dictionary definition:
» "[thedictionary] doesn't classify all things there, but they're correct as far as they go. It doesn't take all kinds of fruit or vegetables; it takes a portion of them. I think the words 'fruit' and 'vegetable' have the same meaning in trade today that they'd on
March 1,
1883. I understand that the term 'fruit' is applied in trade only to such plants or parts of plants as contain the seeds. There are more vegetables than those in the enumeration given in Webster's Dictionary under the term 'vegetable,' as 'cabbage, cauliflower, turnips, potatoes, peas, beans, and the like,' probably covered by the words 'and the like.'"
Another witness testified that "I don't think the term 'fruit' or the term 'vegetables' had, in March 1883, and prior thereto, any special meaning in trade and commerce in this country different from that which I've read here from the dictionaries."
Both the plaintiff's counsel and the defendant's counsel made use of the dictionaries. The plaintiff's counsel read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word tomato, while the defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words
pea,
egg plant,
cucumber,
squash, and
pepper. Countering this, the plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster's and Worcester's dictionaries the definitions of
potato,
turnip,
parsnip,
cauliflower,
cabbage,
carrot and
bean.
The Court's decision
The court
unanimously decided in favor of the defense and found that the tomato was classified as a vegetable, based on the ways in which it's used, and the popular perception to this end. Justice
Gray in his decision stated that:
"The passages cited from the dictionaries define 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. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are 'fruit,' as distinguished from 'vegetables,' in common speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act."
Justice Gray cited several different Supreme Court cases (
Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37
,
42, and
Jones v. U.S., 137 U.S. 202, 216) and stated that when words have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce the ordinary meaning must be used by the court. In this case dictionaries can't be admitted as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Gray acknowledged that,
botanically, tomatoes are classified as a "fruit of the
vine", nevertheless they're seen as vegetables because they were usually eaten as a main course instead of being eaten as a
dessert. In making his decision, Justice Gray mentioned another case where it had been claimed that
beans were
seeds — Justice
Bradley, in
Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U.S. 412, 414, similarly found that though a bean is botanically a seed, in
common parlance a bean is seen as a vegetable.
Subsequent history
Nix has been cited in three Supreme Court decisions as a precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions. (
Sonn v. Maggone, ;
Saltonstall v. Wiebusch & Hilger, ; and
Cadwalder v. Zeh, ). Additionally, in
JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc., 917 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), a case unrelated to
Nix aside from the shared focus on tomatoes, a judge wrote the following paragraph citing the case:
» "In common parlance tomatoes are vegetables, as the Supreme Court observed long ago, see
Nix v. Hedden 149 U.S. 304, 307, 13 S.Ct. 881, 882, 37 L.Ed. 745 (1893), although botanically speaking they're actually a fruit.
26 Encyclopedia Americana 832 (Int'l. ed. 1981). Regardless of classification, people have been enjoying tomatoes for centuries, even
Mr. Pickwick, as
Dickens relates, ate his chops in 'tomata' sauce."
In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited
Nix as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the official
state vegetable.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Nix V Hedden'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://nix_v__hedden.totallyexplained.com">Nix v. Hedden Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
