Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/87081/heinze-vs-arthur-s-executors
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 14:39:01
Document Index: 559036342

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 14', 'art, 96', '§ 8', '§ 22', '§ 13', '§ 2']

Heinze Vs Arthur S Executors - Citation 87081 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Heinze Vs. Arthur's Executors - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/87081
Case Number 144 U.S. 28
Appellant Heinze
Respondent Arthur's Executors
.....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.....
Heinze v. Arthur's Executors - 144 U.S. 28 (1892)
U.S. Supreme Court Heinze v. Arthur's Executors, 144 U.S. 28 (1892)
In Arthur v. Unkart, 96 U. S. 118 , it was held by this Court that gloves like those in question, made on frames, and composed of cotton and silk, in which cotton was the component part of chief value, were not dutiable at 60 percent, under § 8 of the Act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 210, but were dutiable only under § 22 of the Act of March 2, 1861, 12 Stat. 191, and § 13 of the Act of July 14, 1862, 12 Stat. 555-557, and under § 2 of the Act of June 6, 1872, 17 Stat. 231.
Under the ruling of this Court in Davies v. Arthur, 96 U. S. 148 , 96 U. S. 151 , the objection set forth in the protest in this case to the decision of the collector was so distinct and specific as, when fairly construed, to show that the objection taken at the trial was at the time in the mind of the importer, and was sufficient to notify the collector of its true nature and character, to the end that he might ascertain the precise facts and have an opportunity to correct the mistake and cure the defect, if it was one which could be obviated.
This rule was affirmed in Greely's Administrator v. Burgess, 18 How. 413, 59 U. S. 416 ; Arthur v. Dodge, 101 U. S. 34 , 101 U. S. 37 ; Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U. S. 495 , 112 U. S. 501 , and cases there cited, and Schell's Executors v. Fauche, 138 U. S. 562 , 138 U. S. 567 -569.