Morrison v. Miller
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. Action by George A. Morrison and others against Charles E. Miller and others, as executors of Chester A. Arthur, collector of customs, to recover customs paid. The plaintiffs, Morrison, Herrmann'& Co., imported into the port of New' York in August, September, and October, 1873, certain nets made of silk and of silk and cotton; the silk in the latter being the component material of chief value.
Read the full summary
At Law. Action by George A. Morrison and others against Charles E. Miller and others, as executors of Chester A. Arthur, collector of customs, to recover customs paid. The plaintiffs, Morrison, Herrmann'& Co., imported into the port of New' York in August, September, and October, 1873, certain nets made of silk and of silk and cotton; the silk in the latter being the component material of chief value. They were classified for duty at 60 per cent, ad valorem, under the enumerating clause of section 8 of the act of June 30,1864. Tlie plaintiffs, on the other hand, claimed that the rate they…
1Opinion of the Court
Lacombe, J.,
(charging jury.) These goods in suit are covered concédédly by one or the other of two clauses in the tariff act. The one claus,e' contains an enumeration of a great many articles, made of silk, as follows: “Silk vestings, pongees, shawls, scarfs, mantillas, pelerines, handkerchiefs, veils, laces, shirts, drawers, bonnets, hats, caps, turbans, chemisettes, hose, mitts, aprons, stockings, gloves, suspenders, watch-chains, webbing, braids, fringes, galloons, tassels, cords, and trimmings: sixt3r per centum ad valorem J The other is: “Manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Stewart, Howe & May Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1902