Chicago Tire Spring Works Co v. Spalding

Decision Date01 February 1886
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
PartiesCHICAGO TIRE & SPRING WORKS CO. v. SPALDING, Collector of Customs, etc. 1 Filed

P. L. Shuman, for plaintiff in error.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for defendant in error.

BLATCHFORD, J.

The Chicago Tire & Spring Works Company, an Illinois corporation, brought this suit against Jesse Spalding, collector of customs at Chicago, in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois, to recover moneys alleged to have been illegally exacted as duties on imported merchandise embraced in three entries made at the custom-house in Chicago in 1882. The declaration did not mention what the merchandise was. After plea, the parties stipulated in writing that the cause should be tried by the court without a jury. It was so tried, and on the thirty-first of January, 1884, the following entry, entitled in the suit and headed 'Judgment,' was made in the records of the court: 'This day came the plaintiff and defendant, by their attorneys, and, the parties having heretofore filed their stipulation in writing, waiving a jury, and submitting the facts in issue to the court, and the court having heard the evidence and arguments of counsel, and duly considered the same, now finds that the steel-tire blooms, in the declaration mentioned, are produced by first casting a flat round ingot of steel, somewhat in the shape of a cheese or grindstone, with no hole through the center. It is then reheated and hammered, so as to reduce its thickness, thereby compacting its grain or fiber. A hole is swedged through its center; and it is then hammered on the horn or beak of an anvil, thereby expanding its circumference, and forming a grain or fiber in its circumferential direction, and, when intended for tires of driving-wheels, the rudiments of a flange are formed or swedged also upon the outer periphery of the circle. In this form, these blooms are ready for rolling, and are imported at this stage of development. On arriving in this country, they are heated and placed in the rolling-machine, where they are rolled or spun into the size and shape adapting them for use for tires for locomotive driving-wheels or car-wheels, and, after being rolled, the inner and outer surfaces are turned and finished in a lathe. The court finds that, when imported, these blooms had passed through an important stage in the process of manufacture into steel tires, and are therefore articles of steel partly manufactured, and were therefore properly classified for duties as manufactures of steel not otherwise provided for. The court therefore finds the issues joined for the defendant. And thereupon the plaintiff, by its attorney, moves the court for a new trial herein; and the court, being now fully advised upon said motion, overrules the same and awards judgment. It is thereupon considered and adjudged, by the court, that the defendant do have and recover of the plaintiff his costs in this behalf expended, amounting to _____ dollars and _____ cents, and that he have execution therefor.'

On the same day, the following stipulation entitled in the cause, and signed by the attorneys for the parties, was filed: 'It is hereby stipulated and agreed between the parties to the above-entitled cause that, on the trial of the same, it was proved that the plaintiff imported the steel blooms mentioned in the pleadings and proofs in this case, at the port of Chicago, during the year 1882, and entered them at the custom-house as steel blooms, and that the same were assessed a duty of 45 per cent. ad valorem, by the defendant, collector, as 'manufactures of steel not otherwise provided for,' under the provisions of Schedule E, § 2504, Rev. St.; that the plaintiff paid the duty levied thereon, under protest, and in apt time took an appeal to the secretary of the treasury, claiming therein that the blooms in question were not dutiable as manufactures of steel not otherwise provided for, and were not specially provided for by name in the tariff, but were dutiable, at the rate of 30 per cent. ad valorem, as 'steel, in any form, not otherwise provided for,' under the provisions of Schedule E of the same section; that the secretary of the treasury decided such appeal, affirming the action of the collector, and that this suit was afterwards commenced, in due time, to recover the fifteen per cent. duty alleged to have been collected in excess, and so paid under protest; that issue was joined, and, a jury having been waived in accordance with the statute, the case was submitted to the court for trial; that the proof shows that the steeltire blooms in question are produced by first casting a flat, round ingot of steel, somewhat in the shape of a cheese or grindstone, with no hole through the center. It is then reheated and hammered, so as to reduce its thickness, thereby compacting its grain or fiber. A hole is swedged through its center; and it is then hammered on the horn or beak of an anvil, thereby expanding its circumference, and forming a grain or fiber in its circumferential direction, and, when intended for tires, the rudiments of a flange are formed or swedged also upon the outer periphery of the circle. In this form, these blooms are ready for rolling, and are imported at this stage of development. On arrival in this country, they are reheated and placed in the rolling-machine, where they are rolled or spun into the size or shape adapting them for use for tires for locomotive driving-wheels or car-wheels, and, after being rolled, the inner and outer surfaces are turned and finished in a lathe. The work which had been expended on them to bring them from the ingot stage to tire blooms is shown to have been equal to ten or fifteen dollars per ton; that these blooms are classed in trade and commerce with steel bars, steel ingots, steel billets, steel-rail blooms, steel plates, and all sorts of forgings, and are forms of steel known in trade and commerce as steel-tire blooms; that a steel casting which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Palmer v. Aeolian Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 18, 1931
    ...S. Ct. 63, 72 L. Ed. 262; Fleischmann Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 349, 46 S. Ct. 284, 70 L. Ed. 624; Tyre & Spring Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U. S. 541, 6 S. Ct. 498, 29 L. Ed. 720; The City of New York, 147 U. S. 72, 13 S. Ct. 211, 37 L. Ed. 84; Tatum v. Davis (C. C. A.) 283 F. 948; Ra......
  • People's Bank v. International Finance Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 14, 1929
    ...findings themselves support the judgment. Jennisons v. Leonard, 21 Wall. 302, 307 (22 L. Ed. 539); Tyre & Springs Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U. S. 541, 546, 6 S. Ct. 498 (29 L. Ed. 720). That the findings here do support the judgment is too clear for Although we have reached the conclusion ......
  • Saltonstall v. Birtwell
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1893
    ...v. Easton, 106 U. S. 408, 411, 1 Sup. Ct. 307; Ft. Scott v. Hickman, 112 U. S. 150, 165, 5 Sup. Ct. 56; Spring Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U. S. 541, 545, 546, 6 Sup. Ct. 498; Allen v. Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 30, 40, 7 Sup. Ct. 460; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192, 10 Sup. Ct. 57; Ll......
  • Lumber Co v. Louth
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1928
    ...(November 21, 1927); Fleischmann Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 349, 46 S. Ct. 284, 70 L. Ed. 624; Chicago Tyre & Springs Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U. S. 541, 6 S. Ct. 498, 29 L. Ed. 720; Boogher v. Insurance Co., 106 U. S. 90, 26 L. Ed. 310. The special findings already stated establish ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT