Open main menu


Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

96 U.S. 128

Arthur  v.  Sussfield

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

In 1872 and 1873, the plaintiffs, Sussfield, Lorsch, & Co., imported, at New York, a quantity of spectacles made of glass and steel.

Arthur, the collector, held them to be subject to a duty of forty-five per cent, under the third section of the act of June 30, 1864, which reads, 'On all manufactures of steel, or of which steel shall be a component part, not otherwise provided for, forty-five per cent' (13 Stat. 205), and exacted the duty at that rate.

The importers insisted that the duties were to be chargeable under the ninth section of the same act, which reads, 'On pebles for spectacles and all manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be a component material, not otherwise provided for, forty per cent.' Id. 211.

Having paid the duty under protest, they brought suit to recover the alleged excess. The court below held the goods to be dutiable under the ninth section of the act of 1864. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. The collector then brought the case here.

Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edward Hartley, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

NotesEdit

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).