Murphy v. Arnson
| Citation | 96 U.S. 131,24 L.Ed. 773 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. ARNSON |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
In March, 1871, Arnson & Wilzinski, the plaintiffs below, imported into New York a quantity of nitro-benzole, which is obtained by the chemical action of its constituents—benzole and nitric acid—upon each other. It is then refined and cleaned by distillation, and sole as nitro-benzole and as 'oil of myrbane' to druggists, soap manufacturers, 'and to the trade generally.' The defence introduced testimony that this is a well-known article of commerce, commercially known as oil of myrbane, used for perfuming and flavoring, and also commercially known as 'artificial oil of bitter almonds,' as well as by its other names; and that, in fact, it resembles essential oil in the uses to which it is put, as a marketable commodity, more than any thing else, and is used as a substitute for an essential oil, being cheaper. Rebutting testimony was put in by the plaintiffs below.
Murphy, the collector, exacted duty upon this nitro-benzole as upon an 'essential oil not otherwise provided for,' fifty per cent, under the fifth section of the act of July 14, 1862 (12 Stat. 548), whereas the importers contended that it was a non-enumerated article, and that forty cents a gallon was the proper duty, being the highest rate payable on either constituent agreeably to the similitude clause of the act of Aug. 30, 1842, sect. 20 (5 Stat. 565).
Upon this evidence the court directed a verdict for the plaintiffs. Judgment having been rendered thereon, the collector brought the case here.
Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. William Stanley and Mr. Stephen G. Clarke, contra.
It was an evident error on the part of the collector to tax 'nitro-benzole' as an essential oil. There was no evidence that such was its character; but it appeared at the trial, by uncontradicted evidence, and was in fact conceded, that it was made by mixing benzole and nitric acid; that these substances combined by reason of their chemical affinity, and nitro-benzole was the result. Not being enumerated as a dutiable article, it falls under the twentieth section of the act of Aug. 30, 1842 (5 Stat. 565), called the similitude clause.
'And be it further enacted, that there shall be levied, collected, and paid, on each and every non-enumerated article which bears a similitude, either in material, quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied, to any enumerated article chargeable with duty, the same rate of duty which is levied and charged on the enumerated article which it most resembles in any of the particulars before mentioned; and if any non-enumerated article equally resembles two or more enumerated articles on which different rates of duty are chargeable, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on such non-enumerated article the same rate of duty as is chargeable on the article which it resembles paying the highest duty; and on all articles manufactured from two or more materials the duty shall be assessed at the highest rates at which any of its component parts may be chargeable.'
The government now contends that the duty assessed by the collector was the proper one, for the reason that nitro-benzole resembles essential oil in the use to which it is applied, and should be subject to the same duty with that article; to wit, fifty per cent. There is no pretence that it resembled essential oil in material quality or texture. Although made of two fluids, there is no evidence that the compound resulting bore any similitude in material quality or texture to either of its original elements, nor is there any thing in the nature of the subject to require us to believe that such was the fact.
The evidence of the use to which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phillips Pipe Line Co.
...L. Ed. 1397; Oliver Iron Min. Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172, 67 L. Ed. 929; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 62 L. Ed. 1101; Murphy v. Arnson, 96 U.S. 131, 24 L. Ed. 773; Utah P. & L. Co. v. Pfost, 286 U.S. 165, 76 L. Ed. 1038; Fed. Compress & Warehouse Co. v. McLean, 291 U.S. 17, 78 L. Ed. 6......
-
State v. Phillips Pipe Line Co.
...59 L.Ed. 1397; Oliver Iron Min. Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172, 67 L.Ed. 929; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 62 L.Ed. 1101; Murphy v. Arnson, 96 U.S. 131, 24 L.Ed. 773; Utah P. & L. Co. v. Pfost, 286 U.S. 165, 76 1038; Fed. Compress & Warehouse Co. v. McLean, 291 U.S. 17, 78 L.Ed. 622; Arkad......
-
Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation
... ... combine different ingredients into a new product. They make a ... soft drink. It was said in Murphy v. Arnson, 96 U.S ... 131, 134, that "Beer may well be said to be manufactured ... from malt and other ingredients, whiskey from corn, or cider ... ...
-
Cain's Coffee Co. v. City of Muskogee
...manufactured to order, such a fact would not be sufficient to render the company a merchant.' " ¶11 In the case of Murphy v. Arnson et al., 96 U.S. 131, 24 L. Ed. 773; the court says:"In the present case the original elements are fluids and the manipulation and the materials blending with e......