Arthur v. Moller
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The question involved in this case is, whether certain articles imported by the defendants, Charles Moller and Paul E. Vacquerel, into the port of New York, known as decalcomariie pictures, are subject to duties as “ printed matter,” or as “manufactures of paper, or of which paper is a component .material, not otherwise provided for.” 12 Stat. 192; 13 id. 213; Rev. Stat., p. 474, sect.…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The question involved in this case is, whether certain articles imported by the defendants, Charles Moller and Paul E. Vacquerel, into the port of New York, known as decalcomariie pictures, are subject to duties as “ printed matter,” or as “manufactures of paper, or of which paper is a component .material, not otherwise provided for.” 12 Stat. 192; 13 id. 213; Rev. Stat., p. 474, sect. 2504, also p. 479. The statutes impose the duties in the language following; viz., On “books, periodicals, pamphlets,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hunt
We think that the decision of the court below was correct.
In Arthur v. Rheims (96 U. S. 143), it was held that the fact that artificial flowers were a manufacture of cotton did not determine that they were dutiable as components of cotton, but' that they were properly taxable under the specific designation of “ artificial flowers.”
The same was held to be true of india-rubber goods, in. Arthur v. Davis (id. 135), and of the steel forming a part of spectacles, in Arthur v. Susfield (id. 129).
No one would contend that a. picture by an eminent artist painted on canvas would be subject to duties…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Arthur v. RheimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
3Cited by14 opinions
- United States v. Imperial Wall Paper Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Hamilton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
- Zanola v. HallCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1957
- Alpers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1949
- Forbes Lithograph Manuf'g Co. v. WorthingtonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1886
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.