Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Co. v. Worthington
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. This cause was heard by the district judge for the District of New Hampshire, holding the Circuit Court, upon the following agreed statement of facts: “ This was an action in which the writ was dated April 18, 1884, brought by the Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company, a corporation located at Boston, in said district, to recover back $1081.42, the amount of duties alleged by them to have…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. This cause was heard by the district judge for the District of New Hampshire, holding the Circuit Court, upon the following agreed statement of facts: “ This was an action in which the writ was dated April 18, 1884, brought by the Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company, a corporation located at Boston, in said district, to recover back $1081.42, the amount of duties alleged by them to have been illegally exacted by the defendant Worthington, as collector of the port of Boston, on certain merchandise described…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Fuller
We concur with the district judge in his conclusion that these iron show-cards were properly assessed as manufactures of iron not specially enumerated or provided for in the act of March 3, 1883, and as such liable to duty under the last paragraph of Schedule C of section 2502 of. the Revised Statutes, as enacted by that act, which reads:
“Manufactures, articles or wares, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, copper, lead, nickel, pewter, tin, zinc, gold, silver, platinum, or any other metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Arthur v. RheimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Arthur v. MollerSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Arthur v. DaviesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Arthur v. JacobySupreme Court of the United States · 1881
3Cited by3 opinions
- Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. NicholsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
- United States v. BerstDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1909
- United States v. Quong Lee & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1909