## Facts

- Nelson J. Elliott imported worsted shawls with cotton borders and worsted suspenders with cotton ends or straps through the Port of New York.
- Evidence showed worsted was made from wool by combing and was recognized in trade as a distinct commercial article called “worsted.”
- Samuel Swartwout, the customs collector, assessed a 50% ad valorem duty under the Act of July 14, 1832, treating the items as “manufactures of wool, or of which wool is a component part.”
- Elliott paid $3,100.78 in duties; Swartwout acted in good faith under Treasury instructions and remitted the money to the United States Treasury in the ordinary course.
- Elliott made no protest or notice at the time of payment that the duty was illegal and gave no instruction not to pay the money over or notice of an intent to sue.
- Elliott sued Swartwout personally in assumpsit to recover the alleged excess duties; the case reached the Supreme Court on a certificate of division from the federal circuit court.

## Issues

1. Whether worsted shawls with cotton borders and worsted suspenders with cotton ends or straps were “manufactures of wool, or of which wool is a component part” under the Act of July 14, 1832, and thus subject to a 50% ad valorem duty.
2. Whether a customs collector is personally liable to refund alleged excess duties when the importer paid without protest or notice, the collector acted in good faith under Treasury instructions, and the funds were paid into the Treasury.

## Decision

- The Court answered the certified questions.
- The Court concluded the imported articles were not properly classified as “manufactures of wool” subject to the 50% duty under the 1832 act when construed by commercial meaning.
- The Court held the collector was not personally liable to repay the duties under these facts because the payment was voluntary (no protest or notice) and the collector had already remitted the funds to the Treasury in good faith.

## Legal Principles

- Tariff and duty statutes are construed according to the commercial understanding of the terms used, because they are drafted for practical administration in trade.
- Where trade usage treats “worsted” as a distinct article, statutory references to “wool” and “manufactures of wool” are read in line with that commercial classification rather than a purely technical account of material origin.
- A collector who, in good faith and in the ordinary course, remits duties to the Treasury is not personally liable for refund after payment when the importer paid without protest or timely notice that the duty was illegal.
- Voluntary payment made under a mistake of law is generally not recoverable; without protest or notice, the importer bears the risk of the legal construction.
- Treasury instructions cannot change the law or private rights, but they may bear on the collector’s good faith for purposes of personal liability and notice-based fairness.

## Conclusion

The Court applied commercial usage to reject a high-duty classification for worsted articles under the 1832 tariff statute and, separately, barred a personal action against the collector because the importer paid without protest and the collector, acting in good faith, had already paid the funds into the Treasury.


Elliott v. Swartwout, 35 U.S. 137 (1836)