Whiting v. Bancroft
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Assumpsit to recover back money paid to the defendant, the late collector of the customs in Boston, while in office, for duties on goods, asserted to be not liable to'the duty. The money was paid under protest. Plea, the general issue. At the trial, it appeared, that the goods imported by the plaintiff, on which the duties were levied, were “worsted bindings.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit to recover back money paid to the defendant, the late collector of the customs in Boston, while in office, for duties on goods, asserted to be not liable to'the duty. The money was paid under protest. Plea, the general issue. At the trial, it appeared, that the goods imported by the plaintiff, on which the duties were levied, were “worsted bindings.” It was contended by the plaintiff: (1) That these bindings were “worsted stuff goods,” in the sense of the tariff act of July 14th, 1832, c. 227, § 2, clause, and also of the tariff act of 1833, c. 55, § 4 [4 Stat. 630], and therefore…
1Opinion of the Court
STORY, Circuit Justice.
The jury having found, that these worsted bindings were not “worsted stuff goods,” in the commercial sense of the terms, it follows of course, that *1057they are not free under the tariff act of 1833, e. 55, § 4, -which exempts all “worsted stuff poods” from duty, the prior tariff act of 1832, c. 227,. § 2, having imposed a duty upon “worsted stuff goods” of ten per cent, ad valorem. The remaining question, which was reserved at the trial, is, whether these worsted bindings are to be deemed non-enumerated articles, liable to a duty of 15 per cent, ad valorem, under the 25th…
2Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. KlumppSupreme Court of the United States · 1898