Hartranft v. Meyer
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brewer
In. 1885 Meyer & Dickinson were merchants in the city of Philadelphia, and John F. Hartranft was collector of customs for that district. .They imported various lots of matelassé cloth. This cloth was composed partly of silk, partly of cotton and partly of wool, silk being the component material of chief value, and the proportion in value of wool being less than twenty-five per cent. The question presented. in this case is, whether the goods were .dutiable under Schedule “K” or .Schedule “ L,” section 2502,- of the act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 508.and 510.
Schedule “ K,” which, is entitled…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Arthur's Executors v. ButterfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Solomon v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
3Cited by36 opinions
- Arnold v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Seeberger v. SchlesingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Loewenthal v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
- Mason v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- United States v. Snow's United States Sample Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.