Forbes Lith Manufacturing Company v. Worthington

by Melvin Fuller

United States Supreme Court

132 U.S. 655

Forbes Lith Manufacturing Company  v.  Worthington

This cause was heard by the district judge for the district of New Hampshire, holding the circuit court, upon the following agreed statement of facts:

'This was an action in which the writ was dated April 18, 1884, brought by the Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company, a corporation located at Boston, in said district, to recov r back $1,081.42, the amount of duties alleged by them to have been illegally exacted by the defendant, Worthington, as collector of the port of Boston, on certain merchandise described in the invoice and entries as 'iron show-cards' imported by them. The pleadings may be referred to. The plaintiffs imported these cards into the port of Boston from Paris, in France, by different steamers from Liverpool, the importations being made in ten separate lots, and extending from December 19, 1883, to April 2, 1884. On each importation, as received, the plaintiffs paid the assessed duties under protest, and duly filed such protest with the collector, and their appeal with the secretary of the treasury. A copy of one of the protests, which may stand for all, is hereto annexed, and marked 'A,' and this action was seasonably brought. The collector exacted a duty of forty-five per centum ad valorem (amounting in the aggregate to $2,432.62) under the clause in Schedule C (last section) of the tariff law of March 3, 1883, which is as follows: 'Manufactures, articles, or wares, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, * * * or any other metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum ad valorem;' while the said importers claimed that the goods were dutiable at twenty-five per centum ad valorem only, (the aggregate amounting to $1,351.20,) under the clause in Schedule M (first section) which is as follows: 'Books, pamphlets, bound or unbound, and all printed matter, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, engravings, bound or unbound, etchings, illustrated books, maps, and charts, twenty-five per centum ad valorem.' The difference between the amount of said duties, at forty-five per cent. and at twenty-five per cent., is $1,081.42, which is the amount that the plaintiffs claim in this case. All the goods charged with the duties were iron show-cards or advertising cards or signs. They were manufactured in Paris on orders given by the said importers to fill orders from parties here, who used them for advertising purposes, (to hang on the walls or in windows or in public places, to give to customers, etc.) The importers imported and sold them to the consumers here for such advertising purposes only. The cards were of different sizes, being on the average about a foot long by six inches wide, and contained, generally, the name of the person and of the article advertised, with some picture or ornament thereon,-- for example, as follows:

'These cards were prepared in different colors, on plates of sheet-iron. It is agreed, if relevant to the issue, that the value of the iron plates before the printing was put upon them was about two or three cents each, and that the other material of the card, as material, was of like trifling value, while that of the completed card or sign was about twenty to twenty-five cents. These cards or signs were lithographed (that is to say, printed) from lithographic stones on hand-presses in the same way that lithographing is done on paper or on card-board. Samples of said cards are filed herewith, marked 'Exhibit B,' and may be referred to at the hearing. The case is submitted by the parties on the above, as an agreed statement of facts. If upon the foregoing facts the merchandise should have been assessed at 25 per cent., judgment is to be rendered for the plaintiffs for $1,081.42 and costs; otherwise, for defendant for costs.'

Copy of the protest was attached to the statement, and samples of the cards accompanied it as exhibits. The court found for the defendant, and entered judgment accordingly, and a writ of error was sued out from this court upon exceptions to the findings and rulings. The opinion is reported in 25 Fed. Rep. 899.

BREWERY A. D.

ESTABLISHED ROBERT SMITH'S 1875.

(Head of)

( Lion. )

INDIA PALE ALE & BROWN STOUT,

IN BOTTLE. PHILADELPHIA. ON DRAUGHT.

U.S. A.

LITH. MAX CREMITZ, PARIS. FORBES CO., BOSTON, SOLE AGENTS.

S. Z. Bowman, for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes