Case ID: f_52/html/0808-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lacombe, Circuit Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Strausky et al. v. Erhardt, Collector.
    
      (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    
    November 17, 1892.)
    1. Customs Duties—Act. or March 3,1883—Hollow Ware.
    Blue and white kitchen utensils, consisting of pots, kettles, saucepans, coffeepots, and similar ware, made of sheet steel, and glazed or enameled, held not to be dutiable as “hollow ware, coated, glazed, or tinned, ” under Schedule C, par. 201, at 3 cents per pound, but dutiable at 45 per cent, ad valorem, as “manufacturers’ articles or wares * * * composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, etc., ” under Schedule C, par. 316, of the act of March 3, 1883.
    2. Same.
    “Hollow ware” means cast-iron ware, in the act of 1883.
    At Law. Motion for a direction of a verdict. Granted.
    Maurice Strausky & Co. imported into the port of New York, in January, February, and March, 1890, certain steel kitchen utensils, hollow in form, glazed or enameled, blue and white, which he put upon the market, in his trade circulars, as “Strausky’s Steel Ware.” The collector classified them under Schedule C of the act of March 3, 1883, as manufactures of steel, etc., (paragraph 216,) and assessed duties thereon at 45 per centum ad valorem. The importers protested and brought suit claiming the merchandise to be dutiable at 3 cents per pound as “hollow ware,” under the same schedule and act, (paragraph 201.) The testimony of wholesale dealers was to the effect that, in the trade, the term “hollow ware” was restricted to cast-iron utensils, and did not cover the articles in suit. At the close of the testimony, Asst. U. S. Atty. Henry C. Platt moved for a direction of a verdict for the defendant on the following grounds: (1) That congress had defined the tariff meaning of the term “hollow ware,” in the first act in which the words had been used, viz., the act of March 2, 1861, where it was associated (paragraph 44) solely with castings of iron; and in the act of June 30, 1864, (paragraph 352,) the same association was made of hollow ware with cast-iron articles exclusively. (2) That the evidence established the fact that the trade meaning of the term corresponded with the congressional definition. (3) That the rulings of the treasury department had always been in conformity with such interpretation of the term.
    
      W. Wickham Smith, for plaintiffs.
    
      Edward Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and Henry C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant.
   Lacombe, Circuit Judge,

(orally.) Upon examination of the prior acts, I am satisfied that congress was of the understanding that “hollow ware” meant vessels of this general kind, which we have here, made of cast iron. For the reason, therefore, that there seems to have been a congressional meaning given to the words “hollow ware,” and embodied in statutes before the passage of the act of 1883, I assume that congress intended to use the words with the same meaning in the later act that it did in the prior act. Verdict directed in favor of the defendant.