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

Annotate this Case

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

Syllabus

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.

Held:

(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.

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.

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.