In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Nine Cases of Silk Hats, Paul Tricon was the claimant. The court had to decide whether or not certain imported silk hats were subject to a duty imposed by Congress in 1846 on all foreign merchandise imported into the country. Tricon argued that since his hats had been made from materials produced in France and England, they should be exempt from this duty as goods partially manufactured abroad before being shipped to America for sale. However, the government contended that these hats constituted “foreign merchandise” under their definition and thus must pay duties upon importation into American ports. After considering both sides' arguments, the court ultimately ruled against Tricon and held that his nine cases of silk hats were indeed subject to a duty imposed by Congress in 1846 on all foreign merchandise imported into America at that time.

In the case of The United States v. Nine Cases of Silk Hats, Paul Tricon, claimant, the dissenting opinion was that Congress had not authorized a seizure and forfeiture for any violation of revenue laws in this particular instance. The majority opinion held that such authority existed under an act passed by Congress in 1846 which allowed seizures and forfeitures for violations related to customs duties or other internal revenue laws. However, Justice McLean argued that there was no evidence presented to show how the hats were imported into the country illegally or without payment of duty; therefore it could not be assumed that they were subject to forfeiture as provided by law. He further noted that while some statutes may allow for broad interpretation when necessary to carry out their purpose, this should only be done if it is clear from context what Congress intended with regard to specific items like silk hats in question here.