Arthur v. Jacoby
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to tbe Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
This was a suit to recover back duties paid under protest. The bill of exceptions stated it was proven at the trial that all the goods charged with the duties were “ pictures painted by-hand, and their value depended on the skill of the particular artist who painted them, and the porcelain ground on which ■ they were painted was only used to obtain a good surface on which to paint, and was entirely obscured from view when framed or set in any manner, and formed no material part of the value of said painting on porcelain, and did not in itself constitute an article of chinaware, being…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pleasants v. FantSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Forbes Lithograph Manuf'g Co. v. WorthingtonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1886
- Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Co. v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Amerman v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1900
- Mellen v. FordUnited States Circuit Court · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.