案由 | Case Background

【中文】原告约翰·尼克斯（John Nix）等人从西印度群岛进口了一批西红柿。根据美国1883年关税法，进口蔬菜需缴纳10%的关税，而水果则免税。尼克斯主张西红柿是“水果”，应该免税；纽约港海关税收专员赫登则认为西红柿属于“蔬菜”，应依据“蔬菜”类别强行征税。双方争执不下，最终诉至美国最高法院。

【英文】The plaintiffs, John Nix and others, imported a shipment of tomatoes from the West Indies. Under the U.S. Tariff Act of 1883, imported vegetables were subject to a 10% duty, while fruits were duty-free. Nix argued that tomatoes were “fruit” and should therefore be exempt from the tariff. Edward L. Hedden, the Customs Collector of the Port of New York, contended that tomatoes were “vegetables” and should be taxed accordingly. The dispute ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

争议焦点 | Legal Issue

【中文】本案的核心问题在于，应如何理解1883年关税法中“蔬菜”和“水果”这两个词的含义：是遵循植物学的定义，还是依据人们日常生活中的普遍理解？

【英文】The central question was how to interpret the terms “vegetable” and “fruit” in the Tariff Act of 1883: whether according to their botanical definitions or based on their ordinary, everyday meaning in common language.

庭审交锋 | Courtroom Arguments

【中文】法庭上，原告方搬出《韦氏词典》等权威词典，指出从植物学角度看，西红柿是植物的“果实”（fruit），属于“水果”，因此理应免税。

【英文】In court, the plaintiffs cited authoritative dictionaries such as Webster’s Dictionary, arguing that from a botanical perspective, the tomato is the “fruit” of the plant and thus qualifies as a “fruit,” making it eligible for duty-free treatment.

【中文】然而，法官最终支持了被告方的立场，即西红柿不是水果，而是蔬菜。

【英文】However, the Court ultimately sided with the defendant, holding that tomatoes are not fruit but vegetables.

判决依据 | Reasoning of the Court

【中文】主审大法官哈瑞斯·格雷指出，在没有证据表明该词在贸易中有特殊含义时，法律应采信其“日常含义”。在日常语言和饮食文化中，西红柿与黄瓜、豌豆等一样，通常作为正餐烹饪食用，而非作为餐后甜点，因此应被归类为“蔬菜”。

【英文】Justice Horace Gray, writing for the Court, stated that in the absence of evidence that a term has a special meaning in trade or commerce, the law must adopt its “ordinary meaning.” In common language and culinary practice, tomatoes — like cucumbers and peas — are typically cooked and served as part of the main course, rather than as a dessert. Therefore, they should be classified as “vegetables.”

案例意义与后续影响 | Significance and Aftermath

【中文】这个判决确立了“法律词语应当按普通意思解释”的规则，成为美国法律解释学的经典案例。

【英文】This decision established the rule that legal terms should be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning, and has since become a classic case in American statutory interpretation.

【中文】一个有趣的后续是，该判例后来甚至被美国新泽西州的小学生引用，用以论证将番茄定为该州“蔬菜”的合理性，侧面印证了这一判决深入人心的影响力。

【英文】In a curious footnote to history, the case was later cited by elementary school students in New Jersey to argue in favor of designating the tomato as the state’s official vegetable — a testament to how deeply this judicial interpretation had permeated public understanding.