or to "Eber Ward, Agentj" "for account ofwhom ittnayconcern j" and there is no question that. under the authorities, it may be'llhowIl whose interest was-intended to be insured, in the same mannerns'lf'the plaintiff's name had., been mentioned. '. Extrinsic evidence may always be tQ forthe purpose of ascertaining the interests intended to be covered. Lee v. Adsit, 37 N. Y. 86; Castner v. Insurance Co., 46 Mich. 15, 8 N. W. Rep. 554. A policy upon a cargo in the name of A., "on account of whom it may concern," or with other equivalent terms,will inure to tlte illterest'of t.he party for whom it was intended by A.; provided. he, at the thne of effecting the insurance, had the requisite authority from such parties, or the latter subsequently adopted his, ,a.ct, (Hoope:r v. llobinson, 98 U. S. 528;) and, if an agent prOCUre a.. policy of insurance 'in his, own name, either the agent or the pl'incjpal may sue thereon, (Waring v. Insurance Co., 45 N. Y. 611.) , From the above statement of facts we find, as a conclusiop. of law, that the defendant has performed the contract set forth by the plaintiff in his declaration, and is entitled to judgment.
(Oircuit Oourt, 'N. D.lzUnoiB. July 18, 1889.) ., .. ,
ctrsTOMS·Dt1'rfiI'll::...cLAsstPrOATtOlT-8lbN.,i>1l.B$lIBD. . , " with the hair together in pie\le' 18 inches Wide, and from 86 ,to 48 inches long, and i:1fleillndifeerently as rugs,_ mats, sleigh robes, and , overcoat trbntnitigs, are dutiable as "skins dressed and ftnlshed, "'under clause 461 of Heyl'. ,A1",I;1l.Ilgement of the Qustoms ,Act. of 1Sga, as unde.r clause 8780f s&ld'Ari;angBment, which to wool and woolen goods.
W. G. Ewing, U. S. Dist. Atty.jand G. H. HarriB, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant.
:BLODGETT,J. Plllintiffsimported a quantity of skins .dressed with the bair on, whioh were invoiced as "Ohinese goatskins. "They were tanned. so as to make the, skins soft and pliable, and consisted of sIIlall pieces of skin sewn together, so as to make parallelograms of about18 inches wide, and from 36 to 48 inches long. The collector assessed tbem for duty as "rugs," under clause 378 of ,HeyJ's Arrangement of the Customs Laws, at 40 per cent. ad valorem. The ,plaintiffs paid the duty so assessed un-der protest, claituing that they should have been assessed as "skins dressed and finished,"'etC., under clause 461 of Heyl, at a duty of 20 per cent.
:At LaW. Shuman &: Difteea, for plaintiffs.
'The proof shows that these goods are sold to some extent for the purpose of being used as floor rugs; that they are also sold for door mats
lB.eported by Louis Boisot, Jr., of the Chicago bar.
KEARY fl. MAGONE.
and vestibllle mats, and are sometimes used for sleigh and carriage robes, and for trimming for overcoats, and such like uses. I do not think, from the proof, that the skins in question were necessarily intended to be used in the shapes in which they were sewn together when imported, but that it was expected that they might be ripped apart at the seams, and applied to the differell.t uSes for which they were in demand, either in the natural colors of the skins themselves, or aftethaving been, dyed and lined. It therefore seems to me that these articles are not so exclusively used as rugs, and applied to that use, as to make them dutiable as'''rugs.'' They fall naturally within the law, and, it seems to me, within the spirit, of the provisions of clause 461, as "skins, dressed and finished," and;in that condition are adaptable for various uses besides that of rugs. The clause under which the collector assessed them for duty is found in 'Schedule K, which in terms is intended to include "wool and woolen .goods." Certainly, these ate ,neithE'r wool nor manufactures of wool, but comemuch more naturally within the group of goods called "Sundries," provided ·for in 8'chedule N of the act of 1883. The mete '(aet ·;thattbeyare used, or may be used, by some people for rugs does . necessarily bring them within the operation of the provision of the law . which provides for a duty on "rugs" in the group ofwool and woolen manufactures. The goods in question, it is may' be, and to soJine extent are, used on floors in the manner that tugs: are used; but this does not make them dutiable as "rugs;" if they are elsewhere specifically described and provided for; and it seems to me they are 80 describedood . provided' for under the terms "skins, dressed and finished," in 'clause 461 ; and, when so described, the use to which they may be applied does not determine their classification or rate of duty. Suppose they had been ;tanned into leather, I take it there would be no pretext out What they would be dutiable as leather in soine of its forms, and not as rugs,although some person might buy and use them in place of rugs. I am therefore of opinion that the goods should have been assessed under cIanse461 at a dutyof 20 per cent. ad valmem, and the issue is foun.d for the
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. Janua!'f 9, 1890.)
, CuSTOMS DtlTJES-CLASSIFIOATION-BLATE BOOKS-PARCHMENT SLATES.
"Slate books," viz., memorandum books of which paper is a component material, of various sl.;es, from inches to 8x5 inches. in lengt.h and breadth, having two coveN, 'and from one to tbree leaves of paperJ coated with a black surface,capable of being writ1;ell upon with slate-pencil; ana "parchment 'slates," being likewllle composed of paper, in one or more foldsJ and ,covered witl1.a white compositi,on, to be up-on with leadcpenctl.-founa by the jury to be dutiable under SchedUle M: of the tard! act of March 8, 1888, as ..Paper, manufactures of, or of whicQ ,Paper is ,a QQmponl1Int material, n,ot specially enumerated 01' provided for in this act; Fer centum ad valorem, II (TarU!lndex, new, 888,) and Dot linder schedule N;:as card'Call,es, poe,kat-bookS, She,ll-boxes,' and all similar articles, Of, What.eve"itm1lot6Jill! CQqlPQ"ed, and by whatever,name known, not enumerated or prqvided for 111 ttUBact, thirtycfl.ve per centum ad valorem. (Id. flO.) . . . · '" :"