Hartranft v. Wiegmann
Decision Date | 02 May 1887 |
Parties | HARTRANFT, Collector, etc., v. WIEGMANN and another |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for plaintiff in error.
F. P. Prichard, for defendant in error.
This is an action at law, r ought in a court of the state of Pennsylvania, and removed into the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, by the firm of J. H. Wiegmann & Son, against the collector of customs for the district of Philadelphia, to recover moneys alleged to have been illegally exacted by him as duties on imported merchandise. After a trial before a jury the plaintiffs had a judgment for $55.29, and the defendant has brought a writ of error. The record contains the following statement of the result of the trial:
'The jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths or affirmation aforesaid, respectively do say that they find as follows, to-wit: Plaintiff imported into the United States from London, in December, 1881, and May, 1882, a quantity of shells, on which he paid duties, June 11, 1883. Among these shells were 37 1/2 doz. regius murex; 8 doz. green ears; 3 doz. white ears,—valued at $71.68, on which the collector imposed a discriminating duty of 10 per cent., or $7.16, as the products of a country east of the Cape of Good Hope; 12 doz. green snails; 27 doz. Lord's prayers; 12 doz. mottoes; 9 doz. Turk's Caps; 3 doz. magpies; 8 doz. snails; 1 doz. trocus; 16 doz. green ears; 3 doz. white ears,—valued at $125.70, on which the collector imposed a duty of 35 per cent., or $44.09, as manufactures of shells.
'The testimony in regard to these shells was as follows:
'Frederick W. Weigmann:
'Dr. Joseph Leidy:
'The jury find that the regius murex, green ears, and white ears are products of countries west of the Cape of Good Hope, as above testified, and that the discriminating duty on them amounted to $7.16, which, with interest to October 5, 1883, amounts to $7.72. The jury fn d that the green snails, Turk's caps, magpies, snails, trocus, green ears, and white ears have been ground upon an emery wheel in the manner and for the purpose described in the above testimony; that the duty collected on them as manufactures of shells amounted to $25.98, which, with interest to October 5, 1883, amounts to $28.03. The jury also find that the Lord's prayers and mottoes have been etched with acid, in the manner and for the purpose described in the above testimony; that the duty collected on them as manufactures of shells amounted to $18.11, which, with interest to October 5, 1883, amounts to $19.54.
Duty on ground shells,............... 28 03
Duty on etched shells,............... 19 54
---------
$55 29
The defendant then moved for a new trial, in refusing to grant which the court held 'that, in order to render the shells subject to duty as 'manufactures of shells,' something more must be done than simply to remove the outer...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
...... occurring manufacture or composition of matter—a product of human ingenuity "having a distinctive name, character [and] use." Hartranft v. Wiegmann , 121 U.S. 609, 615, 7 S.Ct. 1240, 1243, 30 L.Ed. 1012; Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. , 333 U.S. 127, 68 S.Ct. 440, 92 ......
-
Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...... But something more is necessary, as set forth and illustrated in Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609 [7 S.Ct. 1240, 30 L.Ed. 1012]. There must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge, 'having a ......
-
Ass'n For Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent
...... at 309-10, 100 S.Ct. 2204 (quoting Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615, 7 S.Ct. 1240, 30 L.Ed. 1012 (1887)). The Court went on to contrast the Chakrabarty bacterium with the bacterial ......
-
Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. U.S.
......So, in Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 7 S.Ct. 1240, 30 L.Ed. 1012, shells cleaned by acid, and then ground on an emery wheel, and some of them afterwards ......
-
Navigating The Isolated DNA Patent Eligibility Jungle
...S. Ct. 1289 (2012). Id. at 1294. Id. at 1301. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 307 (1980). Id. at 309.Citing Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615 Id. at 309, Citing Funk Brothers v. Kalo, 333 U.S. 127, 131 (1948). Isolation of adrenaline Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford Co., ......
-
Federal Circuit Reverses N.Y. District Court: Claims to 'Isolated' DNA Are Eligible for Patent Protection
...PTO, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15649 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011). See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310 (1980); Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615 (1887); see also Am. Fruit Growers v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11 This article is for general information and does not include full legal......
-
Importing From China? What You Need To Know To Comply With The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act
...6. Id. 7. 19 U.S.C. ' 1307. 8. Convict Labor; Packaging; 19 U.S.C. ' 1307, HQ 115676 (May 24, 2002). 9. Id. (citing Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609 (1887) (ruling the application of labor, by hand or mechanism, does not make the article manufactured within the meaning of the term used i......
-
Do Pharmaceutical Compositions Have Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Under The New USPTO Guidelines?
...of mattera product of human ingenuity 'having a distinctive name, character [and] use.'" Id., at 309-310 (quoting Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609, 615 (1887); alteration in Thus, while the USPTO's Guidelines focus on the structural differences that were lacking Funk Brothers, it may h......
-
Exclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials
...v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 305 (1980). 231. Id. at 306. 232. Id . at 309–10 (alteration in original) (quoting Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615 (1887)). 233. Id. at 310. 234. See id. at 309–10. 235. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). 236. ......
-
Software patent developments: a programmer's perspective.
...(25.) See id. at 303. (26.) See 35 U.S.C. [section] 101 (1994). (27.) See Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309-10 (quoting Hartranft v. Wiegmann. 121 U.S. 609, 615 (28.) The Court rejected Chakrabarty's argument that denying patent protection to his invention would remove the incentive to continue ......