Arthur v. Davies
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
In 1873, Davies & Co. imported into the port of New York certain merchandise, on which the collector imposed and collected a duty of fifty per cent, under the eighth section of the act of July 14, 1862. 12 Stat. 552. The importers insisted that they were liable only to a duty of thirty-five per cent, under the twenty-second section of the act of March 2, 1861 (id. 191), and the thirteenth section of the act of July 14, 1862 (id. 556).
A reduction, under the act of June 6, 1872 (17 id. 231), was allowed.
It was admitted at the trial of the suit brought by Davies & Co. against the collector that the goods were,--
1. Suspenders or braces manufactured of rubber, cotton, and silk; cotton being the component material of chief value.
2. Suspenders or braces manufactured of rubber, cotton, and silk; cotton being the component material of chief value, and the silk, being a few threads, only used for purposes of ornamentation.
It also appeared that they were commercially known as suspenders or braces, and that these terms are synonymous.
Judgment having been rendered for the plaintiffs, the collector sued out this writ of error.
The Solicitor-General for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Edward Hartley, contra.
MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.
|This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).|