Arthur v. Homer
Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
Citation | 24 L.Ed. 811,96 U.S. 137 |
Parties | ARTHUR v. HOMER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
In 1873, Homer & Co. imported into the port of New York certain goods, of which linen was the basis, upon which the collector imposed and collected duties at the rate of forty per cent, under the seventh section of the act of June 30, 1864 (13 Stat. 209). The importers insisted that they were dutiable at thirty-five per cent only, under the twenty-second section of the act of March 2, 1861 (12 id. 192), and brought this action to recover the alleged excess of duties.
The plaintiffs introduced testimony tending to show that the goods were dress patterns, or patterns for dresses, designed for ladies' wear, each piece, or the contents of each carton, comprising the material for a garment, either as an overskirt (polonaise) or dress (robe a jour), although not made up. The size of these patterns or articles varied from about eight to twelve yards. About the edge, or above it, and arranged so as to form an appropriate ornamentation to the article when made up for wear, there was worked, sometimes in cotton thread and sometimes in linen thread, more or less embroidery. The amount of this embroidery and its elaboration was a substantial and influential element in the cost or value of the article.
The component material of chief value in the articles in question was flax or linen, as embroidered; and in the condition in which they were imported,—packed in cartons and boxes,—the value of the goods exceeded thirty cents per square yard.
The testimony further showed that the general descriptive and commercial names of the articles in question were polonaise and robe, more particularly described as linen embroidered robes and linen embroidered polonaise, &c.
The court below directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiffs; and from the judgment entered upon such verdict this writ of error is brought.
The Solicitor-General for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Edward Hartley, contra.
Sect. 14 of the act of March 2, 1861 (12 Stat. 185, 186), imposes duties in the following words, viz.:——
'On all brown or bleached linens, ducks, canvas, paddings, cotbottoms, burlaps, drills, coatings, brown hollands, blay linens, damasks, diapers, crash, huckabacks, handkerchiefs, lawns, or other manufactures of flax, jute, or hemp, or of which flax, jute, or hemp shall be the component material of chief value, being of the value of thirty cents and under per square yard, twenty-five per cent ad valorem; valued above thirty cents per square yard, thirty per cent ad valorem; on flax or linen threads, twine, and pack-thread, and all other manufactures of flax or of which flax shall be the component material of chief value, and not otherwise provided for, thirty per cent ad valorem.'
The twenty-second section (12 Stat. 192) imposes a duty of thirty per cent on 'manufactures of cotton, linen, silk, wool, or worsted, if embroidered or tamboured in the loom, or otherwise, by machinery or with the needle, or other process not otherwise provided for.'
The tenth and thirteenth sections of the act of July 14, 1862 (12 Stat. 554-557), impose five per cent additional duty on each of the above enumerations totidem verbis.
The seventh section of the act of June 30, 1864 (13 Stat. 209), imposes duties as follows:——
The twenty-second section was as follows (id. 216):——
'And provided further, that the duties upon all...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Freidericks
... ... body must have so intended. Wood v. United States, ... 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 342, 10 L.Ed. 987; Arthur v ... Homer, 96 U.S. 137, 24 L.Ed. 811; Witte v. Shelton ... (C.C.A. 8) 240 F. 265, 153 C.C.A. 191. The word ... 'traffic,' as used in section ... ...
-
Wooley v. Watkins
...the earlier and the later. (Board v. Coal Co., 93 U.S. 619, 23 L.Ed. 989; Movius v. Arthur, 95 U.S. 144, 24 L.Ed. 420; Arthur v. Homer, 96 U.S. 137, 24 L.Ed. 811; Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536, 5 S.Ct. 255, 28 L.Ed. 770.) A careful reading and comparison of the provisions of the act ......
-
United States v. Domestic Fuel Corporation
...12 U. S. (8 Cranch) 109, 3 L. Ed. 504; State of South Carolina v. Stoll, 84 U. S. (17 Wall.) 425, 430, 21 L. Ed. 650; Arthur v. Homer, 96 U. S. 137, 140, 24 L. Ed. 811; In re Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 570, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. The courts, too, have uniformly intimated an even stronger dis......
-
Witte v. Shelton
... ... positive repugnancy between the two statutes that they cannot ... stand together. ' Arthur v. Homer, 96 U.S. 137, ... 140, 27 L.Ed. 811; Gowan v. Harley, 56 F. 973, 978, ... 6 C.C.A. 190, 195 ... Section ... 238 created, ... ...