Case Name: In re Ottenheimer et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1892-01-08
Citations: 49 F. 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re Ottenheimer et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 49
Pages: 222–223

Head Matter:
In re Ottenheimer et al.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
January 8, 1892.)
Customs Duties — Act oe October 1,1890 — Cotton Corsets — Wearing Apparel.
Cotton corsets, imported on April 30,1891, held to be dutiable under the tariff act of October 1, 1890, (26 St. at Large, p. 567,) at 50 per cent, act valorem, under Schedule I, par. 349, as cotton wearing apparel, and not at 35 per cent., under Schedule I, par. 324, of the act of March 3, 1883, as corsets; nor at 40 per cent., under Schedule I, par. 355, of the said act of October 1, 1890, as “ manufactures of cotton. ”
At Law. Appeal by the importers from a decision of the board of United States general appraisers under the act of June 10, 1890.
Ottenheimer Bros, imported certain cotton corsets per steamer Teutonic on April 30, 1891, upon which the collector of customs at the port of New York assessed duty at the rate of 50 per cent, ad valorem as “cotton wearing apparel,” under the provisions of paragraph 349 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers duly protested, claiming (1) that said goods were dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem only, under the provisions of Schedule 1, par. 324, of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, because they were therein specifically provided for by name, and said act was not expressly repealed by the act of October 1, 1890. (2) If said goods are to be held dutiable under the act of October 1, 1890, then the same were dutiable at 40 per cent, only, as “manufactures of cotton, not otherwise provided for,” in Schedule I, par. 355, of the act of October 1, 1890; and that said goods were not “wearing apparel,” within the ordinary and popular meaning of said words, nor ready-made clothing. An appeal was duly taken under the provisions of the act of June 10, 1890, from the decision of the collector to the hoard of United States general appraisers, who affirmed the same. The hoard of general appraisers held that said articles are articles of dross, commonly la,eed closely around the waist; that they were worn by females, and are articles of -wearing apparel. The importers thereupon took an appeal from the decision of the board pf general appraisers to the United States circuit court. The return of the board of general appraisers was filed on December 10, 1891.
Edward Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and Henry C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty., for collector.
Curie, Smith & Mackie, for importers.

Opinion:
Wheeler, District Judge.
In this case the question is whether the article — cotton corsets- — is properly classified as "wearing apparel." In point of fact it is a waist, in which are inserted whalebones or steels for the support of the body and also for the support of the clothing. If you were to ask anybody who did not care anything about the matter in any way, but who know, whether that is an article of wearing apparel or clothing or not, or whether it is a mechanical contrivance, I rather think they would say it is a part of the clothing; that it would help to keep the body warm; and that it answers the purpose of a waist. I think it is clothing. The decision of the board of United States general appraisers may be affirmed. So ordered.
Note. The tariff act of March 3, 1883, was decided to be repealed by the tariff act of October 1, 1890, in Re Straus, 46 Fed. Rep. 522.