Yes, tomatoes are considered vegetables for tax purposes. The Court decided that even though a scientist would call a tomato a fruit (because it grows from a flower and has seeds), that's not what matters when reading a law made for regular people. In everyday life, we treat tomatoes like vegetables. We grow them in our gardens and eat them in salads or with our main meals, not for dessert like apples or bananas. Since the law was written for business and daily life, the common-sense, everyday definition is the one that counts.

Yes, tomatoes should be treated as 'vegetables' under the Tariff Act of 1883 because that's how most people think of them. When people buy or sell food, tomatoes are considered vegetables that are grown in gardens and served with dinner, not as a sweet treat after the meal like fruits usually are. Even though science says tomatoes are technically fruits, just like cucumbers, squash, beans, and peas, there's no proof that the words 'fruit' and 'vegetable' have any special meaning in business. The judges have to use the ordinary meanings of words, and they can look at dictionaries to help them understand, but not as the final answer.

Yes, tomatoes should be treated as 'vegetables' under the Tariff Act of 1883 because that's how most people think of them. When people buy or sell food, tomatoes are considered vegetables that are grown in gardens and served with dinner, not as a sweet treat after the meal like fruits usually are. Even though science says tomatoes are technically fruits, just like cucumbers, squash, beans, and peas, there's no proof that the words 'fruit' and 'vegetable' have any special meaning in business. We have to use the ordinary meanings of words, and we can look at dictionaries to help us understand, but not as the final answer.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <opinion type="majority"> <author id="b326-9"> Mb. Justice G-eay, </author> "after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The single question in this case is whether tomatoes, considered as provisions, are to be classed as “ vegetables ” or as “fruit,” within the meaning of the.Tariff Act of-1883. The only witnesses called' at the trial 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 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. There being no evidence that the words “ fruit ” and “ vegetables ” have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce, they must receive their ordinary meaning. Of that *307 meaning the court is bound to take judicial notice, as it does in regard to all words in our own tongue; and upon such a question dictionaries are admitted, not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 42; Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 216; Nelson v. Cushing, 2 Cush. 519, 532, 533; Page v. Fawcet, 1 Leon. 242; Taylor on Evidence, (8th ed.) §§ 16, 21. JBotanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables, which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with or after the soup, fish or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert. The attempt to class tomatoes with fruit is not unlike a recent attempt to class beans as seeds, of which Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this court, said: “ We do not see why they should be classified as seeds, any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance. On the other hand, in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term) ‘vegetables.’ Asan article of food on ouq tables, whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup, they are used as a vegetable, as well when ripe as when green. This is the principal use to which they are put. Beyond the common knowledge which we have on this subject, very little evidence is necessary, or can be produced.” Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U. S. 412, 414. Judgment affirmed. </opinion>

There being no evidence that the words `fruit'and `vegetables' have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce, they must receive their ordinary meaning

—noting that, although "[b] otanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine," they are "vegetables" in "the common language of the people

—concluding a tomato was a vegetable despite its botanical classification as a fruit because it is a vegetable "in the common language of the people

—taking judicial notice of meaning of English words and emphasizing that, "upon such a question dictionaries are admitted, not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court

—holding that tomatoes are vegetables, rather than fruits, because tomatoes are vegetables "in the common language of the people

—in the interpretation of a tariff statute, the Supreme Court held that a tomato is a vegetable, although it is scientifically classified as a fruit.

—tomatoes, which are vegetables in common trade parlance, are taxable under Tariff Act of 1883 as vegetables despite the fact that they are botanically fruits, which are not taxed

So we again rely on the principle that words in a statute should be given "their common, ordinary meaning in the context within which they are used." JC, 857 NW 2d at 500

Textualism's ordinary meaning is distinguishable from "literalism," which would not permit the use of commonly understood or technical meanings.

However, the construction of the statute is essentially a question of law, and although the witness's testimony may be helpful in explaining the nature of a certain substance, it cannot be binding upon this Court in determining which of two statutory labels Congress meant to use in referring to that substance.

Yes, tomatoes are classified as vegetables under the Tariff Act. When words in a statute do not have a specialized commercial meaning, they must be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning in common language, not their technical or scientific definition. While botanically tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, in the everyday language of consumers and sellers, they are considered vegetables. The court takes judicial notice that tomatoes, like cucumbers, squashes, and beans, are grown in kitchen gardens and served as part of the main course of a meal, rather than as dessert like fruits typically are. This common understanding and usage, not the botanical classification, controls the interpretation of the tariff act.

Yes, tomatoes are classified as 'vegetables' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1883 because in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, tomatoes are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens and are usually served at dinner with or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert. Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But there is no evidence that the words 'fruit' and 'vegetables' have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce. The court is bound to take judicial notice of the ordinary meaning of words in our own tongue, and dictionaries are admitted not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court.

Yes, tomatoes are classified as 'vegetables' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1883 because in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, tomatoes are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens and are usually served at dinner with or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert. Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But there is no evidence that the words 'fruit' and 'vegetables' have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce. We are bound to take judicial notice of the ordinary meaning of words in our own tongue, and dictionaries are admitted not as evidence, but only as aids to our memory and understanding.

Nix v. Hedden

Premium Feature

Rule of Law:

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

Premium Content

Issue:

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Gray

Analysis:

Gunnerbot