Upon this question I entertain no doubt. The contract with the stevedores, Walsh Brothers, was to load and unload the oargoes of this and other steamers belonging to the defendant at so muoh per ton, and, as is said in the plaintiff's brief, "the injury oomplained of did not result direotly from anything whioh the oontractor was bound by his contract to do." If defendant had been under a duty to protect this hatchway by gratings or otherwise, or if the stevedore had been employed or direoted by the defendant to cover this hatchway, the case would have been different; but, in the absenoe of any suoh duty devolving upon the defendant, or of any evidence of suoh employment of the stevedore by the defendant, it is quite clear that the defendant's liability has not been established.. The oase oomes within the rule declared in a oase greatly relied on by the plaintiff, where it is said: "If an independent contraotor is employed to ·10 a lawful aot, and in the course of the work commits someoasual act of negligence, the employer is not answerable." Pickard v. Smith, 10 Common Bench, N. S. 470. The motion to Bet aside the verdict must be denied.
COOPER MANUF'G Co. tI. FERGUSON.
(OircuitCowrt, D. Colorado.
FOREIGN CORPORATIOJf-CAPACITY TO MAKE CONTRACTS-STATUTE 011' CoLORADO.
This action was upon a contract for the manufaoture and delivery of oertain maohinery. Plaintiff is a oorporation, organized under the laws of Ohio. The statute of Colorado provides that "foreign oorporations" shall, before they are authorized to do any business in this state, file in the office of the secretary a certain certifioate. The defendant pleaded that the contraot declared upon was entered into within the state of Colorado, and that the plaintiff had never oomplied with the statute. It did not appear that plaintiff had engaged
4:99 in general business within the state, or assumed to exercise its corporate powers in any other instance. MCCRARY, C. J., held the statute applicable, and the answer sufficient. fuLLETT, D. J., dissented.
MAY and others ".
(Circuit Court, D. MaMaMuaettB. -,lesO.) 1. REVENUJI}-LAw--oONSTBUOTloN.-'rhe denomination of articles enumerated in a revenue law is construed according to the commercial understanding of the terms used, and not with reference to the materials of which such articles may be made, or the use to which they may be applied. O'UrliI T. MOIrtln, 3 How. 109. Elliot v. Stl/Jrtwout, 10 Pet. 137.
I. 8AJm-" TIN PLATES "-REv. ST. f 2503.-" Tin p111 tes" are Dot Included in section 2503 of the Revised Statutes, under the terms" metals not herein otherwise provided for," or" manufactures of metals." Dodge T. ,Arth'Uf', 22 Int. Rev. Rae. 402, criticised.
&. BAlm-SAlIE-REv. ST. t 25M, 8oBED. E.-" Tin in plates or sheets" 'is subject to a duty of 15 per cent. aa tJalorem, in accordance with the
provisions of section 2504 of the Revised Statutes, schedule Eo
CLARK, D. J. The plaintiffs, in 1874, imported into the port of Boston 5,581 boxes of tin plates. The defendant, then collector of the port, assessed and collected a duty of lIS per cent. ad valorem on these plates. The plaintiffs paid the duty under protest, oontending that the duty should have been only 90 per cent. of 15 per cent. ad valorem; ,and the question to be considered here is whether the duty of 15 per cent. ad valorem was correctly laid, or whether it should have been, as plaintiffs contend, 90 per cent. of the 15 per cent. ad valmem. By section 2504 of the Revised Statutes, schedule E, p. 470, "tin, in plates or sheets," is subjected to a duty of 15 pel cent. ad valorem, and under this provision of the law the collector assessed the duty. But section 2503 of the Revised Statutes provides: "There shall be levied, collected, and paid