McCoy v. Hedden
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. This was an action to recover duties alleged to have been exacted in excess of the lawful rate on certain curry-combs imported by plaintiff. The collector had classified them as “manufactures composed in part of iron, not specially enumerated or provided for,” under the provision therefor in Schedule C of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, and' assessed them for duty at 45 per centum ad valorem.
Read the full summary
At Law. This was an action to recover duties alleged to have been exacted in excess of the lawful rate on certain curry-combs imported by plaintiff. The collector had classified them as “manufactures composed in part of iron, not specially enumerated or provided for,” under the provision therefor in Schedule C of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, and' assessed them for duty at 45 per centum ad valorem. The importer claimed that they were dutiable either at 30 per cent., under the provision of Schedule N of the same act for “combs of all kinds,” or at 35 per cent., under the provision in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Lacombe, J.,
{charging jury.) We probably all supposed that we knew what a comb' was until we heard the evidence in this case. It is in the light of that evidence, however, that the question must be decided bjr you. These tariff acts laying 'duties upon imports are concerned with the trade and commerce of the country. They are emphatically commercial acts, and are intended to lay down rules by which importers and dealers, persons engaged in trade and commerce in this country, are to regulate their business.. In using words in these acts, therefore, congress uses them after an examination into…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Armour & Co. v. State Dairy & Food CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Miller Harness Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- State v. Northwest Magnesite Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1947