New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-07-16

imposed duty upon IT, general terms IN subsequent
act In later part Of the same act, although sum-
GENTLY broad 70 comprehend such article. are not ap
plioable 60 1t. Homer agt the Collector, Wall, 1856
Reiche agt smythe, 13 Wall, 162 Moyns agt. Arsnur
contends that the section Of the Tarn Act Of June
1864, intended TO embrace every article maee on
silk that the concluding clause laying duty OF oU per
cent upon all manufactures OF silk not otherwise pro-
vded for not otherwise provided Tor IN tne seo
ton. and that every article OF which slk was the co
onent OF chief value intended be covered by the
section Under the authorities TO which we nave re
designaton, 60 noSiae, must prevail over general
words and commercial designation is the standard
WAS proved by the witnesses and found by the jury
that although made OF silk the laees In quesue were
article thread lace IL was shown depended upon the
mode OF its manufacture, as upon cushion from hIeao
wound on bObbns moved by hand and that IL Was
equally thread lace, whether made Of cotton or silk
and whether white black, and that there are also
as COTTON Iaces and that thread lace
made of linen had been practically unknown for years
l. The commercial designation Of AN article among
traders and importers, when clearly established, likes
p When Congress has designated an article by It's
specific name aud imposed duty upon It by such name
Inc same act although sufficiently broad TO comprehend
such article, are not applicable 20 II. $4,000,
in the sth Section OF the Act OF 1864 does not deprive
these rules Of their ordinary application IL Is ordered
Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion.
No I3S.-The Tenth National Bank Of New-York C1ty
l.
Warren aud Edward Rowe, assignees of Edmund r
Sanger and Walter Scott bankruptsAppeal from tne
Circuit Court for the Southern District OF Newly ORR
Tho Tenth National Bank Of New-YOrk had an unds
puted debt against the firm Of Sanger Co, OF about
$4,000. The bank endeavOred 10 obtain It's money 10y
persuasion, received only fair words In return Al
Ter pursuing this policy for several months legal meas
ures were resorted and suit begun against the ueD
oTs The debtors received delay and indulgence In the
prosecution OF the suit the same having been begun on
the 81 OF November 1870. and placed in Judgment only
on the 18TH OF January, 1871 Execution was Issued on
the same day last named, and levy made upon the
property OF the defendants Yielding again TO scclta
lions the creditor did press immediate sale unuef
the execution, and the oath OF February 1911 blnh
ruptey proceedings begun by other creditors Inc
sale upon the execution was stayed by an ipuncuon IN
ment aud execution fraudulent and void The in1unc
tiop was afterwards modified by allowing sale and d
recng sheriff TO hold the proceeds subject 10 INC o.
der of the Court The present action goes upon the the
Ory that the mere uOnresstance OF debtor TO Judcla
proceedings against him. the debt Is due ana there
Is no valid defence TO IT, il the suffering and giving
preference under tbs bankrupt Act The theory Is eH
pressly repgdiated the OF Wilson agt Inc Guy
Bank III Wall, 473) 1t Is also held IN that case that
the facts that the debtor does not himself e the pet
ton bankruptcy under such circumstances ana lha
the creditor OF the Insolvency OF the GcOtO
not avoid the Judgment and execution In the present
case there Is proven single fact or circumstance
tending to show concurrence aid on the part OF the
debtors in obtaining Judgment or securing pay nen
of the debit the only effort Of the debtors was 10
delay apparently in the hope OF relief from the eDar
rassnents which finally overwhelmed them. The ludg,
ment OF the Circuit Court must be reversed ana thal
the District Court. dismissng the Dill Win COSTS
affirmed, and IL is 30 ordered.
Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion