Ross v. Peaslee
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
This was an action [by Henry W. Ross and' others against Charles H. Peaslee] for money had and received, to recover back money alleged to have been illegally exacted by the defendant, who is collector of the customs of the port of Boston, in payment of duties. The import in question was entered as “7 casks of brown tartar,” paying a duty of five per cent, ad valorem. It was charged with a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem.
Read the full summary
This was an action [by Henry W. Ross and' others against Charles H. Peaslee] for money had and received, to recover back money alleged to have been illegally exacted by the defendant, who is collector of the customs of the port of Boston, in payment of duties. The import in question was entered as “7 casks of brown tartar,” paying a duty of five per cent, ad valorem. It was charged with a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem. Much evidence was introduced, tending to show that the import in question was not in a naturally crude state, but had undergone a process of refining. It was agreed that…
1Opinion of the Court
CURTIS, Circuit Justice.
If this import, samples of which are produced, was known in the commerce of the United States, when the tariff act of 1846 was passed, as argols, or crude tartar, it is subject to a duty, of five per cent. only. It appears that many different qualities of argols were then known. The act embraces all the qualities under the single denomination of “argols, or crude tartar,” and imposes the same rate of duty on all. It is not material, therefore, that the article now in question is of a high grade of argols, if it is in fact argols of any grade. But if it is not in a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Vandiver v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
- Lang v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914