Herman v. Robertson
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. Action to recover duties. In 1881, plaintiffs imported from England certain cloakings, composed of calf hair or cow hair and cotton.
Read the full summary
At Law. Action to recover duties. In 1881, plaintiffs imported from England certain cloakings, composed of calf hair or cow hair and cotton. The goods were classified by the defendant as manufactures of calf hair and cotton, assimilating to manufactures of goats’ hair and cotton, and assessed for duty at 20 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem, under the provision in schedule L, § 2504, Rev. St., for “manufactures, of every description, composed wholly or in part of the alpaca goat or other like animals,” and the similitude provisions of section 2499, Rev. St. Against this exaction the…
1Opinion of the CourtLacombe, J.
In disposing of this case I feel controlled by the decision in Arthur v. Butterfield, 125 U. S. 70, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 714, to hold that these goods are manufactures of hair, and, as such, provided for by the clause in Schedule M, § 2504, of the Revised Statues, under the phrase, “and all other manufactures of hair, not otherwise provided for, thirty per centum ad valorem.” The precise point nowraised, viz., whether this grade of cattle-hair goods are manufactures of hair, does not seem to have been presented to the supreme court in the three earlier cases where such goods were before that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Arthur's Executors v. ButterfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Arthur v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Herrman v. Arthur's ExecutorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Arthur v. HermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1878