In the case of Samuel Irvine and Peter Forbes v. Herman J. Redfield, the plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully charged duties on imported goods by Redfield, who was then Collector of Customs at the port of New York. The Supreme Court held that while a collector has discretion to assess duties according to his own judgment, he must do so in accordance with established laws and regulations set forth by Congress or other governing bodies; if not, any assessment made is voidable at law. Furthermore, it was determined that when assessing duties on imported goods for which no specific rate had been prescribed by Congress or other governing body, a collector may use their best judgment but should be guided only by general principles applicable to such cases as provided under existing laws and regulations.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Curtis argued that the Collector of Customs had acted within his authority when he refused to accept a bond from Samuel Irvine and Peter Forbes. The Collector was acting in accordance with an act passed by Congress which stated that no bonds would be accepted for duties on goods imported into New York unless they were accompanied by a certificate from the proper officer at their port of entry. Since Irvine and Forbes did not have such a certificate, they could not receive any relief under the law as it stood. Furthermore, Justice Curtis noted that even if there had been some error or irregularity in how the Collector handled their case, it was still within his discretion to refuse them relief since he was charged with enforcing laws enacted by Congress. He concluded that courts should only interfere when there is clear evidence of abuse or fraud on behalf of government officials; otherwise, they should leave matters concerning customs enforcement to those who are best equipped to handle them – namely, executive officers like Collectors of Customs.