Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company v. United States

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

181 U.S. 584

Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company  v.  United States

 Argued: April 11, 1901. --- Decided: May 20, 1901

This was a petition for a drawback upon hops and barley to the amount of $2,371.35, and upon bottles and corks to the amount of $9,817.97, used in the manufacture of bottled beer for export.

The court of claims made a finding of facts, the substance of which is set forth in the margin, and gave judgment for the first item, but rejected the second, and the claimant appealed.

Findings of Fact.

The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:

I. The claimant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin.

II. Between the 1st day of February, 1893, and the 26th day of October, 1894, the claimant exported from the port of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, bottled beer. The hops, barley, bottles, and corks used in the manufacture of this bottled beer had been imported into the United States from foreign countries, and duties had been paid thereon upon importation. The bottled beer was manufactured by the claimant at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The imported materials used in the manufacture, when exported, were identified, the quantity of the materials used and the amount of duties paid thereon ascertained, and the fact of the manufacture of the articles in the United States and their exportation were determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The total amount of the duties paid on the materials mentioned so used and exported was $12,189.32, divided as follows: Upon the bottles and corks, $9,817.97; upon the hops and barley, $2,371.35.

III. The Treasury Department has not refused to pay the drawback upon the hops and barley, but such drawback could be paid under the regulaMessrs. Wm. B. King and George A. King for appellant.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Pradt for appellee

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

Mr. Justice Brown 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).