This case was a dispute between the Collector of Customs of the Port of New York and the Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Company. The Collector had seized a shipment of goods from the company, claiming that the company had failed to pay the required duties. The company argued that the Collector had no right to seize the goods, as the duties had already been paid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Collector, finding that the company had not paid the required duties. The Court held that the Collector had the right to seize the goods, as the company had failed to pay the required duties. The Court also held that the Collector was not required to provide the company with a hearing prior to the seizure of the goods. The Court's decision established that the Collector of Customs had the right to seize goods without providing a hearing prior to the seizure, if the duties had not been paid. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to support the Collector's right to seize goods without providing a hearing.

In the case of Hollister, Collector v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for the defendant. He believed that Congress had not intended to impose an income tax on corporations and thus it was unconstitutional to do so as there was no explicit authority granted by Congress or any other part of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that even if such a tax were constitutional, it would be impossible to assess accurately due to its complexity and lack of uniformity among states with regard to corporate taxation laws. Finally, Justice Field noted that while some may argue this tax is necessary for revenue purposes, it could also lead to oppressive taxation on businesses and individuals alike without providing any real benefit in return.