Arthur v. Cumming,
91 U.S. 362 (1875)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Arthur v. Cumming, 91 U.S. 362 (1875)

Arthur v. Cumming

91 U.S. 362


1. The term "burlaps," used in the revenue statutes, does not in commercial usage, by which descriptive terms applied to articles of commerce must be construed, mean "oil cloth foundations," or "floor cloth canvas."

2. "Oil cloth foundations" and "floor cloth canvas" are in commerce convertible terms for designating the same article, and it is clear that Congress intended that they should be so understood.

3. While the Act of June 6, 1872, 17 Stat. 232, provides that an import duty of thirty percent ad valorem shall be levied

"on all burlaps and like manufactures of flax, jute, or hemp, or of which flax, jute, or hemp shall be the component material of chief value, except such as may be suitable for bagging for cotton,"

the fact that such burlaps are suitable and can be and are used for oil cloth foundations or for any other purpose except bagging for cotton is entirely immaterial, and does not subject them to an ad valorem duty of forty percent.

Disclaimer: 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.