Field v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The appellants Marshall Field and others imported and entered at the port •of Chicago in December, 1893, certain merchandise, composed entirely of •cotton, upon which the collector of the port iinposed and collected a duty of 00 per cent, ad valorem, as “cotton embroideries,” under paragraph 373 of Schedule J of the tariff act of October 1, 1890 (26 Stat. 594, c. 1244), which Is a’s…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The appellants Marshall Field and others imported and entered at the port •of Chicago in December, 1893, certain merchandise, composed entirely of •cotton, upon which the collector of the port iinposed and collected a duty of 00 per cent, ad valorem, as “cotton embroideries,” under paragraph 373 of Schedule J of the tariff act of October 1, 1890 (26 Stat. 594, c. 1244), which Is a’s follows: “Laces, edgings, embroideries, insertings, neck rufflings, ruchings, trimmings, tuckings, lace window-curtains and…
1Opinion of the Court
JENKINS, Circuit Judge,
after statement of the case, delivered tlie opinion of tlie court.
It was declared by tbe supreme court in Robertson v. Salomon, 180 U. S. 412, 414, 9 Sup. Ct. 559, that “tlie commercial designation, as we have frequently decided, is the first and most important desig*809nation to be ascertained in settling the meaning and application of i lie tariff laws.” See Arthur v. Lahey, 96 U. S. 112, 118; Barber v. Schell, 107 U. S. 617, 623, 2 Sup. Ct. 301; Worthington v. Abbott, 124 U. S. 434, 436, 8 Sup. Ct. 562; Arthur’s Ex’rs v. Butterfield, 125 U. S. 70, 75, 8 Sup. Ct. 714. The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cadwalader v. ZehSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Arthur's Executors v. ButterfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Arthur v. LaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Arthur v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Barber v. SchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stiner & Son v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- Lussky, White & Coolidge, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933