TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hiller v. United States

Hiller v. United States, 106 F. 73 (2d Cir. 1901)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 4, 1901
Docket
No. 25
Judges
Lacombe, Shipman, Wallace
Citations
106 F. 7345 C.C.A. 2291901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3951
Headnotes
Tariff Duties — Braids. Cotton braids, intended to be manufactured into, shoe laces, though not trimmings, are within Tariff Act 1897, par. 330, imposing a duty of 60 por cent ad valorem on certain cotton manufactures, among whicli are “embroideries, and all trimmings, including braids, edgings, inserting», flouncing», galloons, go rings, and bands”; the intention that the word “including” was used not by way of spedfloation, but by way of addition, being shown by a comparison of the acts of 1897 and 1894, indicating that braids were intentionally taken out of the 45 per cent, paragraph, where they appeared in the act of 1894, and put into the 60 per cent, paragraph of the act of 1897, irrespective of the use to which they may be applied. Lacombo. Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Shipman

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge.

On or about September 22, 1897, the appellants imported into the port of New York certain cotton braids in lengths of 120 to 144 yards, generally tubular, but in some instances Hat, which were intended to be made into shoe laces by being (;ut into suitable lengths and properly tagged for that purpose. They are not trimmings, and are known as braids, or as shoe-lace braids. They were classified by the collector under paragraph 839 of the act of -July 24, 1897, which imposed a duty of 60 per centum ad valorem upon a long list of articles composed of fiax, cotton, or other vegetable fiber which have been ornamented, or are of an ornamental character. In this list were the following articles: “Embroideries and all trimmings, including braids, edgings, insertings, flouncings, galloons, gorings and bands.” The importers protested that the merchandise was dutiable either under paragraph 322, which is as *74 follows: “All manufactures of cotton, not specially provided for in this act, forty-ñve per centum ad valorem,” or at the same rate, under paragraph 320 of the same act, as bindings or tapes. Paragraph 322 is the only one now relied upÓn. The board of general appraisers affirmed the action of the collector, and the circuit court affirmed the decision of the board.

The construction which the defendants give to the language of paragraph 339 is, “all trimmings, including braids” used for that purpose. The government understands the clause to mean “all trimmings, among which are included braids, edgings,” etc., and that the word “including” is used not by way of specification, but by way of addition. It would be somewhat difficult to infer the legislative intention from the language, of the paragraph without reference to the history of this part of the cotton schedule, because in the tariff acts the word “including” is sometimes used merely to specify particularly that which belongs to the genus,- and is sometimes used to add to the general class a species which does not naturally belong to it. A comparison of the provisions of the cotton schedules in the acts of 1894 and 1897, in regard to the classification of braids, is, however, quite significant of the intent of congress. Paragraph 263 of the act of 1894, which corresponded to paragraph 320 of the act of 1897, imposed a duty of 45 per .centum ad valorem upon cords, braids, etc., made of cotton, but braids are omitted in paragraph 320 of the new act, which imposed the same duty. Paragraph 276 of the act of 1894, which corresponded to paragraph 339 of the new act, omitted braids, which was inserted in paragraph 339, — the one under consideration. This comparison of the two acts indicates that congress intentionally took braids out of the 45 per cent, paragraph, where it had been in 1894, and put the article into a paragraph imposing a higher rate of duly; and that it intended to impose the rate upon the articles generally, irrespective of the use to which they might be applied. The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

I am unable to concur in the opinion of the majority. Reference to the earlier acts in pari materia is no doubt illuminative as to legislative intent, and it is quite apparent that the braids of paragraph 263 of the act of 1894 are found nowhere in the act of 1897, except in paragraph 339. But the braids of paragraph 263 of the act of 1894 did not include the articles in question, because they were otherwise specially provided for in the same paragraph as “boot, shoe and corset lacings.” I am, therefore, of- the opinion that congress intended by paragraph 339 of 1897 to cover only such braids as are trimmings.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1903: 11906: 11907: 21908: 11912: 11921: 11943: 11952: 11988: 12005: 12012: 119032026peak 1907 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Pierce147 F. 199 (2d Cir. 1906)
  2. State v. Montello Salt Co.98 P. 549 (Utah 1908)
  3. A. Steinhardt & Bro. v. United States121 F. 442 (1903)
  4. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Hodnette147 S.W. 615 (Tex. App. 1912)
  5. Baruch v. United States159 F. 294 (1907)
  6. Patteson v. City of Peoria47 N.E.2d 867 (Ill. App. Ct. 1943)

Most recent

  1. Rutland Herald v. City of Rutland and AFSCME Council 93, Local 12012012 VT 26, 48 A.3d 568
  2. Cummins Inc. v. United States377 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)
  3. Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources770 P.2d 370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988)
  4. Lloyd v. Robinson110 F. Supp. 540 (D. Mont. 1952)
  5. Patteson v. City of Peoria47 N.E.2d 867 (Ill. App. Ct. 1943)
  6. Jaeger's Sanitary Woolen System Co. v. United States11 Ct. Cust. 181 (C.C.P.A. 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list