Meyer v. Arthur
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Southern District of New York. ''This is a suit to recover import duties alleged to have been unlawfully exacted by the defendant, tbe collector of the port of New York.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Southern District of New York. ''This is a suit to recover import duties alleged to have been unlawfully exacted by the defendant, tbe collector of the port of New York. Tbe articles on which they were charged were white lead, nitrate of lead, oxide of zinc, and dry and orange mineral, imported after the first day of August, 1872. By the sécond section of the act to reduce duties on' imports, passed June 6,1872,17 Stat. 280, it was provided that on and after the first day of August, 1872, only ninety per cent of the duties theretofore…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bradley
The plaintiffs contend that white lead,.nitrate of lead, oxide of zinc, and dry and orange mineral, are “manufactures of metals.” Whether they are or not is the question at issue.
' Unless some special usage to the contrary can be shown, the construction relied on by the plaintiffs is clearly wrong.
When the act speaks of “ manufactures of metals,” it obviously refers to manufactured articles in which metals form a component part. When we speak of manufactures of wood, of leather, or of iron, we refer to articles that have those substances respectively for their component parts, and not to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Meyer v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Western Dairy Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974