ARTHUR
v.
ZIMMERMAN
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.
The Supreme Court held that imported hat braids, though potentially subject to a general tariff duty on cotton manufactures under an 1864 act, were entitled to a lower, specific duty rate because they were explicitly enumerated as "hat braids" in earlier acts of 1861 and 1862, with the Court affirming that specific tariff designations prevail over general ones and ordering a refund of excess duties paid by the importer.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion of the court.
The articles imported by the defendant iii error are embraced in the general words of the act of 1864, and, if there were nothing else in the case, would be subject to the duty therein provided.
They are, however, commercially-known as “hat braids,” used exclusively for enamelling hats and bonnets. These articles are specifically enumerated in the acts of 1861 and 1862, and are there made subject to a different and a lower duty.
By these acts, and by the Revised Statutes, Congress establishes and recognizes the distinction.between “cotton braids” and “ other manufactures of cotton not otherwise provided for,” and “hat braids.” 12 Stat. 178; id. 543, 551; Rev. Stat., sect. 2504.
Under the. principles laid down in Arthur v. Morrison, Arthur v. Lahey, and Arthur v. Unkart (supra, pp. 108, 112, 118), the specific designation should prevail; and the judgment in' favor of the plaintiff for the excess of duties paid by him was right, and must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robertson v. Edelhoff, 132 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1890)…ated or provided for in that act, and- are therefore dutiable at 20 per cent. The question, however, is not only clear on principle, on a review of the statutory provisions, but it is disposed of by decisions of this court. In Arthur v. Zimmerman, 96 U. S. 124, the articles imported were composed of cotton, and were known commercially as “hat braids.” The collector imposed duty upon them under that clause of section 6 of the act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 209, which provided for a duty of 35 per cent on “…1 / 2
-
Solomon v. Arthur, 102 U.S. 208 (U.S. 1880)
-
Ferguson v. Arthur, 117 U.S. 482 (U.S. 1886)