Badger v. Ranlett
Decision Date | 11 December 1882 |
Citation | 1 S.Ct. 346,106 U.S. 255,27 L.Ed. 194 |
Parties | BADGER, Collector, etc., v. RANLETT & Co |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The firm of D. L. Ranlett & Co. imported into the port of New Orleans from Liverpool, England, in 1880, certain articles, entered some as 'bundles black iron cotton ties, 30 strips each bundle, and 30 Kennedy buckles;' others as 'bundles blacked iron cotton ties, arrow buckles, No. 4, 30 buckles and 30 strips to each bundle, 11 feet;' others as 'bundles blacked iron cotton ties, Kennedy buckles, 30 buckles and 30 strips to each bundle, 11 feet.' Having paid under protest the duty exacted by the collector, which was one and a half cents per pound on the weight of the iron strips and the buckles, the importers claiming that the lawful duty was 35 per cent. ad valorem, appealed to the secretary of the treasury, who affirmed the decision of the collector. This suit was then brought. The petition alleges that the imported goods were 'manufactures of iron, viz., certain invoices of black iron cotton ties,' 'in bundles of 30 strips each, cut to the required length of 11 feet, and sundry buckles,' 'being 30 buckles to each bundle of said ties;' that the proper duty was 35 per cent. ad valorem, and no more, because the ties, composed of the strips and buckles in said bundles, constituted a manufacture of iron for a special and important purpose, and were 'manufactures of iron not otherwise provided for;' and that, even if the strips of iron were not to be admitted at a duty of 35 per cent. ad valorem, the duty on the buckles could not lawfully have exceeded that rate, while that exacted on them amounted to an excess of $750. The whole amount claimed to be recovered back was $3,762.
The question involved arises under section 2504 of the Revised Statutes, which, in Schedule E, imposes the following duties:
The bill of exceptions states that on the trial certain facts were 'conceded, as set forth in note of evidence and statement of facts filed in the cause in open court;' that 'a sample of the articles of merchandise imported by plaintiffs, and described in the petition,' was 'produced and exhibited to the jury;' that 'witnesses' were ad valorem.' and on the part of the defendant;' that it was 'claimed on the part of the plaintiffs that the imported articles, for the recovery of a portion of the duties paid upon which this suit was brought, should have been classed and subjected to duties as cotton ties, under the designation 'manufactured articles not otherwise provided for;" and that it was 'claimed on the part of the defendant that the said imported articles should have been classed and subjected to duties under the designation 'band or hoop iron." The 'note of evidence and statement of facts' sets forth that the plaintiffs introduced the entries of the goods, and then proceeds:
At the request of the defendant the court charged the jury, that 'if the jury find from the evidence that the articles imported by the plaintiffs consisted of iron bands, blackened, cut into lengths of 11 feet, and put up in bundles of 30, with 30 buckles on one band in each bundle, and not permanently attached, then the fact that the buckles accompany the bands will not prevent the bands from being included in and dutiable under the denomination of band...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weinstein v. Laughlin
...U. S. 339, 29 S. Ct. 493, 53 L. Ed. 822; De Rodriguez v. Vivoni, 201 U. S. 371, 26 S. Ct. 475, 50 L. Ed. 792; Badger v. Ranlett, 106 U. S. 255, 1 S. Ct. 346, 350, 27 L. Ed. 194; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572, 26 L. Ed. 234; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 23 L. Ed. However, we have cons......
-
Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Rude
...not before us. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co., 139 U. S. 62, 11 S. Ct. 489, 35 L. Ed. 69; Badger v. Ranlett, 106 U. S. 255, 1 S. Ct. 346, 350, 27 L. Ed. 194; Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Midland R. Co., 117 U. S. 434, 6 S. Ct. 809, 29 L. Ed. The petition virtually stated two......
-
The Willdomino
... ... But this question was ... not presented to the trial court and, consequently, will not ... be considered here. Badger v. Ranlett, 106 U.S. 255, ... 259, 1 Sup.Ct. 346, 27 L.Ed. 194; H.W. Paine & Co. v ... Manistee Tanning Co. (C.C.A.) 279 F. 340, 2 R.C.L. 69 ... ...
-
Fourth Nat Bank of City of New York v. Francklyn, Ex
...which was not presented to the court below. That is doubtless the general rule. Klein v. Russell, 19 Wall. 433; badger v. Ranlett, 106 U. S. 255, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 346, 350. But it would be unreasonable to apply it when the effect would be to make the rights of the parties depend upon a statu......