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

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
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 : www.chanroblesbar.com 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 www.chanrobles.com


ARTHUR V. DAVIES, 96 U. S. 135 (1877)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 96 U. S. 135 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Arthur v. Davies, 96 U.S. 135 (1877)

Arthur v. Davies

96 U.S. 135

Syllabus

1. The duty on braces and suspenders is, eo nomine, fixed by the twenty-second section of the Act of March 2, 1861, 12 Stat. 191, and the thirteenth section of the Act of July 14, 1862, id., 656.

2. Merchandise technically and commercially known as braces and suspenders is subject to the duty imposed upon them, although it would otherwise fall under the general designation applicable to other articles.

In 1873, Davies & Co. imported into the port of New York certain merchandise, on which the collector imposed and collected a duty of fifty percent, 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 percent, 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. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 96 U. S. 136





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED