In the case of George R. Sampson and Lewis W. Tappan, doing business under the style and firm of Sampson & Tappan v Charles H. Peaslee, Collector of Customs, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed on goods imported into Massachusetts by Sampson & Tappan could be collected from them as importers or if it should instead be paid by their consignee in Boston who had received possession of those goods prior to payment being made for them. The court found that since no part of the purchase price had been paid at time when possession was taken in Boston, there was no legal obligation upon either party to pay such taxes until after payment for said goods had been made; thus making it impossible for any duty or tax due on said imports to have accrued before then and therefore not collectible from either party at that point in time.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Curtis argued that Congress did not have the power to impose a duty on goods imported into the United States from foreign countries. He argued that such an act would be unconstitutional because it was beyond Congress' enumerated powers and violated states’ rights under the 10th Amendment. Furthermore, he asserted that if Congress had intended to tax imports, they should have done so explicitly in their legislation rather than relying on implied authority. In conclusion, Justice Curtis believed that imposing a duty on imports was outside of Congressional authority and therefore unconstitutional.