Court Opinion

ID: 9448601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:41:05.586593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:30.123613
License: Public Domain

SHACKELFORD MILLER, Jr., Chief Judge
(dissenting).
The evidence in this case supports the finding of the District Judge that the stone deposits quarried by the taxpayers were (with one exception) relatively uniform, sedimentary, carbonate rocks and contained a minimum of 90 per cent of the mineral dolomite. They possessed proximate chemical analyses ranging as follows;
Calcium carbonate .... 52-56 per cent
Magnesium carbonate. .41-45 per cent
Impurities.3 per cent or less
The one exception was the so-called No. 63 stone from the Huntington quarry which possessed a proximate chemical analysis as follows:
Calcium carbonate.33.82 per cent
Magnesium carbonate ... 27.23 per cent
Impurities .38.25 per cent
The District Judge was of the opinion that the word “dolomite” referred to a rock rich in magnesium carbonates and composed of 90 per cent or more of the mineral dolomite, and that the word “limestone” referred to a high calcium carbonate rock having a calcium carbonate content far in excess of the magnesium content and ranging up to 95 per cent. For a helpful discussion of this same question, see the opinion of the same Judge in Wagner Quarries Co. v. United States, 154 F.Supp. 655, 659-662. He pointed out in the present case that various authorities differed on the percentage of content of magnesium or calcium carbonates in order to arrive at a determination of whether the rock was dolomite or limestone. He found that the taxpayer's product, excepting the No. 63 stone, was a high grade “dolomite” but not “limestone” of chemical grade or metallurgical grade. In his opinion, reported at Erie Stone Co. v. United States, D.C., 181 F.Supp. 942, he points out why the ruling in Wagner Quarries Co. v. United States, supra, 154 F.Supp. 655, affirmed, 260 F.2d 907, C.A.6th. and relied upon by the appellants, is not controlling in this case. See also: Riddell v. California Portland Cement Co., 297 F.2d 345, 351, C.A.9th; Halquist v. Com*350missioner, 33 T.C. 304, 321-322, reversed on other grounds, 291 F.2d 49, C.A.7th.
The District Judge also found that the No. 63 stone from the Huntington quarry was not “dolomite” but was "stone.” He stated that its potential use seemed to be limited to that of ballast and that it appeared to possess no other virtues. Dr. Kriege, appellants’ expert witness, testified that the content of the rock dolomite varied widely in common usage so far as magnesium was concerned; that there was a wide diversity of opinion among the experts as to the magnesium carbonate that should be present before the rock qualified as dolomite; and that to quite an extent the use determined the definition of the stone because the users had developed their own terminology. He testified that to a person interested primarily in the use of the material for cement purposes it began to be dolomitic or a dolomite at five per cent, or ten per cent at the utmost, but that the user of the material for flux stone in blast furnaces, for example, would think in terms of nearer to forty per cent magnesium carbonate before it ever became a dolomitic limestone to him. The explanation for this was that magnesium carbonate was an impurity and a serious limitation in the making of cement, but that the magnesium carbonate content was a very definite benefit if it was used for blast furnaces. He testified as follows:
“Q. Now, doctor, I will ask you for your individual opinion as a man who has had as much experience in this subject as anybody in the United States; I want your opinion as to how much magnesium carbonate would be present in a dolomite rock or dolomitic rock in order to make it a dolomite in terms of trade and commerce? Give us your own personal views on that subject.
“A. In my own personal thinking, I find difficulty in thinking of a rock as a dolomite if it does not contain well over forty percent magnesium carbonate.”
It appears to be agreed that the magnesium carbonate found in the company sample was only 27.23 per cent.
In my opinion, the findings of the District Judge are supported by the evidence, are not clearly erroneous and should be accepted on this review. United States v. Wagner Quarries Co., supra, 260 F.2d 907, 908, C.A.6th.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.
WEICK, Circuit Judge.
No. 63 stone which contained carbonates of 61.05 per cent was classified by the District Court, not as dolomite, but as stone and held entitled to the lowest depletion allowance of 5%. In my judgment, since this stone contained more than 50% of the mineral dolomite, it was entitled to a classification as dolomite with a 10% depletion allowance. Blue Ridge Stone Corp. v. United States, 170 F.Supp. 569 (D.C.Va., 1959).
The fact that the stone contained impurities of 38.25% means simply that it is a low grade dolomite. The statute does not distinguish between high and low grade dolomite. Either grade is entitled to a 10% depletion allowance.
I therefore agree with Judge McAL-LISTER that the District Court was in error in not classifying No. 63 stone as dolomite and that the judgment should be reversed with instructions to so classify it.
I am in agreement with Judge MILLER that the District Court was correct in classifying taxpayers’ product containing in excess of 90% of the mineral dolomite as a high grade dolomite entitled to a 10% depletion allowance and that part of the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed.