MILLER'S'AD1lI'n 11.'NoRFOLlC&W. :R. Co.
Code Va. 1887, § 3225, provides that, in a.il aqtion againstara.ilroad corporation process may be served on a.ny agent of the Qorporation when certain officers, ca.nnot be found in the county where the action In an action begun in tqe fed. eral co'tirt"tlle sheriff'. return sllowedtba.t tlle on defendant's station agent, and did not state that none of the said be found in the judicial district. Held.. insuftlcient, since in the federal courts the statutory limita.tion to the district, inste!'d of the <;ounty.
At Law. On motion to quash the writ because·of.insufficientsemoe. Geo;W.Ward and F. S.Blair, ·. · FulkeriJ(1fl, &: Page, for . '.
J. The return on the writ in' this case shows it to have been
of Tazewell, stat,e of Virginia, in w1;lich said and state the said E. P. Brad'y resides; said service beingmore'than ten day's before the returnday ofthe process." The Code of Virginia (Ed. 1887, § 3225)provides how process against or notice, to a corporation shidP1)e served. of arailroad company, itprovides that sl;'tvice maybe "on cashier, treasurer, general superintendent, or anyone of its II stlitute further provides that "if 'there be not in the county or cor'poration wherein the case is commenced any other persdn on whom there -ca.n ,be, service, as aforesaid," it,may be served "on any agent of the corporl\tion against which the case is." Under the provisions ofthis, statute:, where suit is broug?t in, a state?ourt Ii, company cess must be served on tbe 'presldent; 'cashIer, treasurer, general superintendent,' or one of its dire,ctors. If there be none of these' in the the suitisbrougHi, maybe on any agent ofs\1bhrnilroad company. This court; in the matter ofserving process, applies to the ,whole distriot the statutory provisions concerning counties', in the service of pro'cess in the state 'courts. The w140le of this district niust be regarded, as to territorial limits, $S a connty'is regarded is brought in a state court agaiost'a railroad,cotporation. In· 'a 'suit brought in the United States circuit court'of this distrlctagainst a railroad corporation, process can only be served on an'agenttihllich corporation when the president, cashier,treasu.rer, general superintendent,or)anjiofits dil-ectol'S cannot befdund iuthedililtrict. ' Itappearing to the' court tl)at sOlpe of these principal offi6ers 01 the defendanhallroad company reside in this of the writ on an agent of the be quashed, the case r(,tnanded company is insufficient.. ThewrW to Nles, and new ,.,' " .. , ,
(C1reuA.t Cowrt, 8. D. New York. February 17, 1890.)
CUSTOMS DUTJIls-CLA.SSIFIOATJON-FANO'i' PAPIlRS.
Certain fa.ney p'apers know·n as "velvet pBper"and "embossed paper, "used tn the .. ID.aill11'ircture of· boxes, to covel'trunks, and for similar usell, held to be dutiable, nndar Schedule:M: of thetarlff BOt of March 8,1883, (Tariff Index,892,)aa "!Ill other papilr not spetlially enumerated or provided for, " at twenty-five per centum ad 1,lalorein, !lnd not dutiable as II manufBOturea of paper, " at 15 per centum, under the (!d. 888;)
The plaintiffs in May, 1888, imported certain merchandise into the p.ort ofNew York, consistingof:fancy papers, known as "velvet paper" and "embossed paper," uponw,hich,the defendant, collector of the port, assessed a duty of 25 per centum ad valorem, .under Schedule M of the tariff act of 1883, (Tariff Index, 392,) which reads as follows:
and papf;lrfor,spreens or fire-boards, paper antiquarian, demy, imperial, letter, note, and all other paper not,specially,enliniera,te4or. pro.yided for. inthls act, twenty-five per centum
.' . . "
The' claiming that s,uch merchandise, was dutiable ollly cent. ad under the same schedule of the same act, (Id.3.8S;)which:provides, for "paper, manufactures of, or of which paper is a p0J:l;l,PQnent material,uotspecially enumerated or provided for in ·this.act" Jifteen.per.cent. ad ,valorem." 'fhis suit was brought to recover the a'leged excessive duty. The merchandise in suit had gone through several Pl'9ceSses of manufacture beyond those known in the art of or(.Hnary paPtlr-xnaking, and upon machipes not used in ordinary paperThe,embossep paper is an imitation of morocco or leather, and Jts use is for coyering trunks, boxes, etc. The velvet paper is manufactured' from <;>rdinary white printing paper, by putting on sizing, and throwing thereon wool.or nock, which adheres thereto, .and which gives ,it an similar to ,velvet. This ,latter paper is sometimes used qpoll walls, and sometimes in the manufacture of paper boxes, albums, 'etc. "tIl trade and commerQe these. articles are known as belonging to ;theclass ,of I' fancy papers,".arid are placed under that' designation in tra4e cfl,talogues.. , :" . . ,(Jom,stock ,&BroWn, for plaintiff. " Jf,d,wo,rd )1itchelJ" U. S. Atty., and Hen:ry O. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty·· t.
J., (oraJ1y question which will come to Joq.. an .eJ(tremely brief one. These. articles, before the plaintiff, or ,person from whom he obtained them,bestowed his labor and care :'Upop were respectively either manilla paper, or machine finished book paper;-a variety of the kind of paperwhich is known as "printing paper." To that manilla or printing paper there has been applied a considerable amount of labor and material, and considerable expense bas been incurred for work done upon it. The plaintiff claims that this