In the 1891 case of Rossman v. Hedden, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax imposed on imported goods applied to certain types of fabric. The plaintiff, Rossman, argued that his imported fabrics were exempt from taxation under an act passed by Congress in 1883 which specified that "wearing apparel and other personal effects" were not subject to import duties. However, the defendant and collector of taxes at the Port of New York, Hedden, contended that these items did indeed fall within taxable categories as outlined by law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Hedden. They held that while clothing made for individual use could be considered "personal effects," this term did not extend to cover all forms of fabric or material intended for making clothes - particularly when such materials are imported en masse rather than tailored for specific individuals' use. This decision clarified how broadly terms like "personal effects" should be interpreted within tax laws and affirmed collectors' rights to levy duties on a wide range of imported goods.

The Rossman v. Hedden case does not have a documented dissenting opinion available in the public domain. The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, ruling that tomatoes should be classified as vegetables for tariff purposes despite their botanical classification as fruits. Therefore, there is no known dissenting opinion to summarize for this particular case from 1891.