The U.S. Supreme Court case Andrews, Executrix of Andrews v. John Nix & Company in 1917 revolved around a dispute over the classification of tomatoes under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883. The plaintiff argued that tomatoes should be classified as vegetables and thus subject to import duties while the defendant contended they were fruits and therefore exempt from such charges. The court ruled in favor of Nix & Co., stating that although botanically a tomato is considered a fruit, it is commonly used as a vegetable in culinary contexts which was more relevant for trade purposes. This decision established an important precedent regarding how items are categorized for tariff purposes based on their common usage rather than scientific classifications.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Andrews v. John Nix & Company argued that tomatoes should be classified as fruits rather than vegetables for tariff purposes. The justice contended that, according to botany, a tomato is a fruit because it grows from the fertilized flower of the tomato plant and contains seeds. Therefore, he believed that this scientific classification should take precedence over common language usage when determining legal definitions and classifications for trade purposes. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how other similar items were categorized under current law which further supported his argument for reclassification based on botanical definitions instead of popular understanding or culinary use.