Dodge v. Hedden

• Decision Date: 30 October 1889
• Parties: DODGE et al. v. HEDDEN, Collector.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

42 F. 446

DODGE et al. v. HEDDEN, Collector.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

October 30, 1889

At Law. Action to recover duties.

Arnoux Ritch & Woodford and Stephen G. Clarke, for plaintiff.

Edward Mitchell, U.S. Atty., and W. Wickham Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty for defendant.

Plaintiff imported at the port of New York quantities of an essential oil called 'oil of petit grain.' This oil was distilled from the leaves, twigs, and immature fruit of the orange tree. The collector assessed it for duty at 25 per cent., under the provision in Schedule A of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, for 'all preparations known as 'essential oils,' not specially enumerated or provided for in this act. ' The importer claimed it to be free of duty under the provision in the free-list of the same act for 'oil neroli or orange flowers,' There was a conflict of testimony as to whether this latter term in trade and commerce included oil of petit grain.

LACOMBE J.,

(charging jury.) If there were no evidence in this case, if we had nothing here but the tariff act, and the meaning which the dictionary gives to the word 'neroli,' namely, that it is the essential oil obtained from the flowers of the bitter orange, I should have to instruct you to find a verdict for the defendant, because it appears that the article imported by the plaintiff is not distilled from orange flowers. There is evidence, however, which was introduced under a general principle of interpretation of all these tariff acts, to-wit, that inasmuch as they deal with trade and commerce, it is supposed that their framers, when they used the words and phrases, used the same with the meaning which traders and commercial men give to them. For that reason testimony was introduced touching the trade meaning of the words 'oil neroli,' and also touching the trade designation and recognition of the article here imported. The question, therefore, which comes to you to be determined as a question of fact, is whether prior to March 3, 1883, oil such as was imported by this plaintiff (that is, oil made not from the flowers, but from the leaves, twigs, and immature fruit of the orange tree, generally described as 'petit grain') was generally regarded and recognized in trade and commerce in this country as 'oil neroli.' That is the question of fact to be determined by you. In determining that question there are certain suggestions which should be made to

...