Junge v. Hedden
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. .This was an action to recover an alleged excess of duties exacted upon importations of dental rubber into the port of New York in 1885, The duty was assessed under the paragraph of Schedule N, of section 2502 of the Revised Statutes, as reenacted by the act of March 3, 1883, which reads: “ Articles composed of india-rubber, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, twenty-five…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. .This was an action to recover an alleged excess of duties exacted upon importations of dental rubber into the port of New York in 1885, The duty was assessed under the paragraph of Schedule N, of section 2502 of the Revised Statutes, as reenacted by the act of March 3, 1883, which reads: “ Articles composed of india-rubber, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem.” 22 Stat. 488, 513, c. 121. The substance of the protests is stated in the record as follows: “…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Fuller
Itl Arthur v. Butterfield, 125 U. S. 70, 76, it was said by Mr.. Justice Field, speaking for the court: “ To place articles-among those designated as enumerated, it is not necessary that they should be specifically mentioned. It is sufficient that they are designated in any way to distinguish them from other articles.” And this language was quoted with approval as defining the general scope of the similitude clause in the customs acts, in Mason v. Robertson, 139 U. S. 624, 627, in which it whs held that bichromate of soda was subject to the duty of twenty-five per centum ad valorem imposed…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Arthur's Executors v. ButterfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Mason v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
3Cited by33 opinions
- Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Director of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 2002
- A. O. Andersen & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1922
- Bradford Co. v. American Lithographic Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
- Gayer v. WhelanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2000
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.