Robertson v. Hedden
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. Action to recover duties. Plaintiff imported from Scotland a class of fabrics generally known as “Madras Curtain Goods.” They were composed of cotton, woven in looms, and were figured, the figures being woven in the same loom and at the same time as the cloth, and covering portions of the fabric.
Read the full summary
At Law. Action to recover duties. Plaintiff imported from Scotland a class of fabrics generally known as “Madras Curtain Goods.” They were composed of cotton, woven in looms, and were figured, the figures being woven in the same loom and at the same time as the cloth, and covering portions of the fabric. The collector had classified the goods as cotton cloth, and had assessed duties under the countable clauses of Schedule I of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, according to the number of threads to the square inch in the ground-work of the fabric, and the value per square yard. Against this…
1Opinion of the CourtLacombe, J.
These samples are cotton cloth, within the dictionary definition, and within the common, every-day meaning of the word “cloth,” just the same as was the “penolope canvas,” which was before us in Ullmann v. Hedden, 38 Fed. Rep. 95. They are within the definition which was used as the test in that case, viz.: “Cloth: A woven fabric, of fibrous material, used for garments or other purposes.” Congress has, however, in the paragraph on which the defendant relics, prescribed rates of duty only for those kinds of cotton cloth which may be discriminated from each other by a count of the threads of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. EinsteinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
- United States v. AlbertCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1894
- United States v. Rusch & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909