US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for


Subscribe to Cases that cite 144 U. S. 28 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Heinze v. Arthur's Executors, 144 U.S. 28 (1892)

Heinze v. Arthur's Executors

No. 146

Argued March 2, 1892

Decided March 14, 1892

144 U.S. 28


Gloves made of cotton and silk in which cotton was the material of chief value were imported in January, 1874, and charged by the collector with a duty of 60 percent ad valorem, that rate of duty being chargeable only on "silk gloves" under the Act of June 30, 1864, c. 171, 13 Stat. 210, and on "ready made clothing of silk, or of which silk shall be a component material of chief value," under § 3 of the Act of March 3, 1865, c. 80, 13 Stat. 493. The importer protested and appealed and brought suit. His protest stated that the goods were only liable to a duty of 35 percent less 10 percent "being composed of cotton and silk, cotton chief part, the duty of 60 percent being only legal where silk is the chief part." The goods were made on frames.


(1) Under § 14 of the Act of June 30, 1864, c. 171, 13 Stat. 214, 215, the protest set forth distinctly and specifically the grounds of the objection of the importer to the decision of the collector, and was sufficient.

(2) It was immaterial that the protest did not specify that the gloves were made on frames. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 144 U. S. 29

(3) The goods were dutiable only at 35 percent less 10 percent under § 22 of the Act of March 2, 1861, 12 Stat. 191, and § 13 of the Act of July l4, 1562, 12 Stat. 555, 556, 569, and under § 2 of the Act of June 6, 1572, 17 Stat. 231.

The case is stated in the opinion.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™