SEEBERGER
v.
CAHN

U.S. | 1890-11-17
No. 47
137 U.S. 95 Supreme Court of the United States (1890) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 34 L. Ed. 599 · 11 S. Ct. 28 · SCDB 1890-016 · 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2071
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court resolved a tariff classification dispute involving imported fabric goods that were composed mainly of worsted but mixed with smaller amounts of shoddy and cotton. The Court held that goods known in the trade as "worsteds" must be classified and taxed under the tariff provision for "manufactures of worsted" rather than "manufactures of wool," establishing that when the tariff statute imposes different duty rates on distinct categories of goods, those goods are removed from the broader category even if they contain materials from that broader class. The Court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment that the goods were subject to duty as manufactures of worsted.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Gray,

Mr. Justice Gray,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, under “Schedule K, Wool and Woollens,” (22 Stat. 508, 509,).imposes duties as follows:

“Woollen cloths, woollen shawls, and all manufactures of wool of every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, valued at not exceeding eighty cents per pound, thirty-five cents per pound and thirty-five per centum ad valorem; valued at above eighty cents per pound, thirty-five cents per pound, and in addition thereto forty per centum ad valorem.

“ Flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods, and all goods made on knitting-frames, balmorals, .woollen and worsted yarns, and all manufactures of every description, composed wholly or in part of worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat or other animals (except such as are composed in part of wool), not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, valued at not exceeding thirty cents per pound, ten cents per pound; valued at above thirty cents per pound,' and not exceeding forty cents per pound} twelve cents per pound; valued at above forty cents per pound, and not exceeding sixty cents per pound, eighteen cents per pound; valued at above sixty cents per pound, and not exceeding eighty cents per pound, twenty-four •cents per pound; and in addition thereto, upon all the above? named articles, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; valued at above eighty cents per pound, thirty-five cents per pound, and in addition thereto forty pér centum ad valorem.”

In the interpretation of the customs acts, nothing is. better settled than that words are to receive their commercial meaning ; and that when goods of a particular kind, which would otherwise be comprehended in a class, are subjected to a distinct rate of duty from that imposed upon the class generally, they are taken out of that class for the purpose of the assessment of duties.

Of the two successive paragraphs in the customs act of 1883, upon which the parties respectively rely, the first imposes a certain scale of duties on “ all manufactures of wool of' every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act; ” and the second imposes a lower scale of duties on “ all manufactures of every description, composed wholly or in part of worsted.” It is hardly necessary to observe that the subsequent words enclosed in a parenthesis "(except such as are composed in part of wool)” evidently qualify only the intervening clause “ the hair of the alpaca, goat or other animals,” and have no bearing upon this case.

Though worsted is doubtless a product of wool, and might in some aspects be considered a manufacture of wool, yet manufactures of worsted being subjected by the second paragraph to different duties from those imposed by the first paragraph on manufactures of avooI, it necessarily follows that a manufacture of worsted cannot be considered as a manufacture of wool, within the meaning of this statute.

That shoddy, though a product, and.in some sense a manufacture , of wool, is not to be considered as itself wool, or a manufacture of wool, within the meaning of the statute, is clearly shown by the paragraph next preceding the two above quoted, which makes the duty on “woollen rags, shoddy, mungo, waste and flocks, ten cents per pound.” Lennig v. Maxwell, 3 Blatchford, 125.

It being distinctly found, as matter of fact, that the goods in question are called or known in the trade as “ worsteds,” and are composed mainly of worsted, but mixed with a small proportion of shoddy and .of cotton, the Circuit Court rightly held that they were subject to duty as manufactures of worsted, and not as manufactures of wool.

The cases of Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137, and Biggs v. Frick, Taney, 100, are directly in point; and our conclusion is supported by many decisions of this court in analogous cases. Homer v. The Collector, 1 Wall. 486; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162; Movius v. Arthur, 95 U. S. 144; Arthur v. Morrison, 96 U. S. 108; Arthur v. Lahey, 96 U. S. 112; Arthur v. Stephani, 96 U. S. 125; Arthur v. Davies, 96 U. S. 135; Arthur v. Rheims, 96 U. S. 143; Swan v. Arthur, 103 U. S. 597; Vietor v. Arthur, 104 U. S. 498; Robertson v. Glendenning, 132 U. S. 158. Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Stone & Downer Co., 274 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1927)
    …ctures of worsteds were separate subjects of importation, and that paragraph 297 postponing the reduction of duties on manufactures of wool, did not apply to manufactures of worsteds. It had been expressly decided by this Court in Seeberger v. Cahn, 137 U. S. 95, 97, that cloths popularly known as diagonals, and in the trade as worsteds, were subject to duty under the Act of March 3, 1883, as manufactures of worsteds and not as manufactures of wool. It was admitted that the merchandise in controversy was wo…
  • United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1892)
    …to be placed upon that portion of the act of 1883 which refers to imported woollen cloths. It was an act suggested by the contest then pending in the courts, and which was finally decided adversely to the government in the case of Seeberger v. Cahn, 137 U. S. 95, in which it was held by this court that “.cloths popularly known as c diagonals,’ and known in trade as ‘ worsteds,’ and composed mainly of worsted, but with a small proportion of shoddy and of cotton, are subject to duty as a manufacture of worste…
  • Cadwalader v. ZEH, 151 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1894)
    …described in the customs laws by a. more. specific designation and subjected to a distinct rate of duty from that imposed upon the class, generally, they are taken out of that class for the purpose of the assessment of duties. See Seeberger v. Cahn, 137 U. S. 95, 98, and cases cited. 'In Greenleaf v. Goodrich, 101 U. S. 278, and in Schmdeder v. Barney, 113 U. S. 645, the extent of the decision was that the phrase “of similar description” was not a technical or commercial term; and that, while it might be c…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw