Arthur v. Lahey
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Circuit Court-of the United States fo,r the Southern District of New York. In the years 1872 and 1873, Lahey & Co. imported from France certain articles of silk manufacture, on which Arthur, the collector of the port of New York, imposed and collected a duty of sixty per cent, under the eighth section of.the act. of June 30, 1864l 13 Stat. 210. Among the articles so imported was a quantity of laces which the importers insisted were commercially known as “ thread…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court-of the United States fo,r the Southern District of New York. In the years 1872 and 1873, Lahey & Co. imported from France certain articles of silk manufacture, on which Arthur, the collector of the port of New York, imposed and collected a duty of sixty per cent, under the eighth section of.the act. of June 30, 1864l 13 Stat. 210. Among the articles so imported was a quantity of laces which the importers insisted were commercially known as “ thread laces,” and liable to a duty of only thirty per cent ad valorem, under the nineteenth section of the act of March…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hunt
Referring to the cáse of Arthur v. Morrison (supra, p. 108) for a fuller explanation of the views of the court, we assume, at this point, as established, the following propositions. A citation and exaihination of some of the authorities are given hereafter..
1. The commercial designation of an article among traders and importers, where such designation is clearly established, fixes its character for the purpose of the tariff laws.
2. When Congress has designated an article by a specific' name-, and by such name imposed a duty upon it, general terms in a subsequent act, or in a later part of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ogle v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1804
- Movius v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Homer v. The CollectorSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Stuart v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
3Cited by53 opinions
- United States v. Stone & Downer Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- American Net & Twine Co. v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Robertson v. SalomonSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Chew Hing Lung v. WiseSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.