Worthington v. RobbinsAnnotate this Case
139 U.S. 337 (1891)
U.S. Supreme Court
Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U.S. 337 (1891)
Worthington v. Robbins
Argued March 19, 1891
Decided March 30, 1891
139 U.S. 337
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
"White hard enamel," imported in 1884, and used for various purposes when a smooth or enameled surface was desired, including the making of faces or surfaces of watch dials, the form or condition of it, as imported, affording no indication of tae use to which it was to be applied, and it requiring to be ground or pulverized and new processes of manufacture to be applied before it could be made of any practical use, the article in this case having been imported for use in making watch dials, and having been in fact so used, was subject to a duty of 20 percent ad valorem, under § 2513 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by § 6 of the Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, as an article manufactured in whole or in part, not therein enumerated or provided for, and not to a duty of 25 percent ad valorem, as "watch materials" not specially enumerated or provided for in the act, under schedule N of § 2502 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by the same § 6.
In order to be dutiable as "watch materials," the article, when imported, must be in such form of manufacture as to show its adaptation to the making of watches.
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.