Legal Opinion

In re White

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Decided January 5, 1893PublishedCited by 5 opinions

At Law. Appeal from decision of the United States general appraisers. The imported merchandise in this suit consisted of jute goods woven, from 38 to 24 inches in width, commonly known in the trade as “paddings” or “canvas,” which were classified hy tlie collector as “manufactures of jute,” dutiable at 40 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 374 of the tariff act of October 1, 389Ó. The importers duly protested, claiming said merchandise, to be properly dutiable as…

Read the full summary

At Law. Appeal from decision of the United States general appraisers. The imported merchandise in this suit consisted of jute goods woven, from 38 to 24 inches in width, commonly known in the trade as “paddings” or “canvas,” which were classified hy tlie collector as “manufactures of jute,” dutiable at 40 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 374 of the tariff act of October 1, 389Ó. The importers duly protested, claiming said merchandise, to be properly dutiable as “burlaps,” of jute, not exceeding 60 inches in width, at 1% cents per pound, under paragraph 364 of said act. The board of…

1Opinion of the Court

COXE, District Judge,

(orally.) The only question in this cause is one of fact It is conceded on all sides that the term “burlaps,” (paragraph 364,) found in the act of 1890, is a more specific designation of the imported goods than the term, “manufactures of jute or other vegetable fibre, etc., not specially provided for in this act,” (paragraph 374.) Are they burlaps? This question of fact was thoroughly tried out- before the board of appraisers, and the board has reported that all of the articles in controversy are burlaps. Griving to their decision only the weight which would be given to…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Apgar v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1897
  2. Neresheimer v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1903
  3. Corbitt & Macleay Co. v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1907
  4. Douglass & Berry v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1901
  5. White v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1895

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API