MEYER ". COOPER.
merchantable article, adapted to 'tneuses, for which it is designed,' the uses of manufacture, that it shall not only be made into bobbins but 'shall also be turned into skeins, the defendant is entitled to your verdict. If, on the other hand, the yarn is a completed article, fitted to the pur,. poses for which it is designed, in the bobbin, and that the skeining is Qnly necessary for convenience in transportation, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff, for the amount of his claim. A new trial was granted, as the verdict was against the evidence.
MEYER 11. COOPER,
(Oircutt Court, E. D. Penn8'l/wanf.a. October 8, 1890.) 1.
CuSTOMS DUTIB8-CBnu.-WARB.....D11TT ON WRA.PPERS.
Cheap cups and saucers were imported in paper boxes, closed by brass ClaspI, each box containing only a single pair, wrapped in tissue paper. He'ld, 'under United States statute, finding that tlie co ..ver.iugs o.n impOrted. goods designed for use other than in the bonajUte transportation of the goods shall pay a duty, if said coverings were intended for use iu transportation only, and for no other use; and were n(lt intended to enhance the value, increase the sale, or facilitate the,ilillling, they were free; otherwise, they were subject to duty. '", ,.' , Austrian fiorins are to berecel.ved by the custom house at the rate 1ixed'by'ihe United States mint,; " , .
. '. '. ,.' ' .·. ,. .
BAME-PA.YMBNT IN FORBIGN MONlilTS.
At Law. , ,,',' . This suit was brought to ,recover back duties lIpon certain and paper, boxes in, which ,cups and saucers were imported.' 'rhe invoice described' the articles as decorated china-ware. They were e1).ter.ed under the name, and duty paid thereon. The appraiser returrte"U\le coverings as" unusual" coverings, and subject to duty of 100 per cent. ad valorem. These coverings consisted of boxes, closed by a brass clasp, containing a single cup and saucer of inferior grade; and tissue paper surrounding the china. The testimony as to the usual and necessary erings for china of that grade was conflicting. The plaintiff also, sued to recover the excess of duty paid by the valuation of Austrian florins at a different rate from the valuation fixed by the United States mint. To this the government offered no defense. The verdict was for defendant for the coverings and for plaintiffJor the florins. Prank P. Prichard, for the plaintiff. W. WilkinaCarr, Asst. U. S. Atty., and John R. Read, U. S. Atty., ,for defendant.
BUTLER, J., (charging jury oraUy.) There is not very much money involved in this case, but, inasmuch as it arises outof the admillistrationoof the tariff laws, it is important that it shall receive deliberate andcar!3fu1 _consideratlon; because,if it is IlOt properly deCided, it will llDcertainty The case, is very readily understood, and not difficult to decide. Upon ,the,
ofthe invoice of merchandise, of which a sample is before you, the revenne officers subjected the box in which the ware was imported to a duty of 100 per cent. The amount was paid by the importer, the plaintiff here, under protest, who subsequently sued to recover back the duty assessed upon the box, claiming that it is not dutiable. Now, the question before you is: Is this box dutiable under the statute? The counsel for the plaintiff asks the court to say that, "If the article in question" (that is, the box) "was not of any material or form designed to evade the duties thereon," (there is no pretense that it is "designed to evade the duties;" the government does not so charge,) "or designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of the goods to the United States, the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict." That is true. If this box was not designed for use otherwise than in the bonafide transportation of the goods to the United States, the plaintiff is entitled to recover. It was improperly taxed if the box was not intended for any other purpose than the transportation of the goods to the United States. The defendant, the government, asks the court to say to you that" If you believe the box involved in this suit is of material or form designed for use otllElrwise than in the bona fide transportation of the goods to the United States, your verdict should be for the defendant." That is equally true. If the box was designed, was intended, to have any other use than that of transporting the goods, the duty was properly levied. We are further asked to say - "If the box in suit enhanced the value of the contents llnd increased the facilities for selling, that is a use independent of the transportation of the merchandise and is liable to taxation as the government taxed it." That is true. If the box was intended to have any other use or purpose in connection with the goods than that of transporting them-if it was designed to have any other use or purpose,-it is liable to the tax imposed; and in that event your verdict must be for the defendant. The statute, under which the case arises provides that "The usual and necessary sack, crate, boxes or coverings of goods imported shall not be estimated as a PRJ't of their value in determining the amount of duties for which they are liable;" in other words, that the importer shall be taxp.d, or rendered subject to duty, only upon the value of the goods themselves, abroad, and that the boxes, crates or sacks in which the goods are packed for purposes of carriage shall not be estimated as a part of the value of the merchandise and subjected to taxation. The statute further provides that "If any package, sack, crate, boxes or coverings of any kind in which merchandise is imported shall be of material or form designed to evade the duties thereon * * *-the same shall be subject to a tax of 100 per cent." There is no charge of design to evade the statute here. I will read what is important, omitting what is not: portation of th'e goods to the United States, the same shall be subject to a
of material or form designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide trans.
a,ny package, sack, crate, boxes or coverings of any kind shall be
tax of 100 per cent."
IN RE VETTERLEIN.
The single question involved is, were the boxes designed for any other use than that of conveying the goods? If not, they were improperly taxed, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover back what he paid. If they were designed for any other use, then they are liable to the tax imposed by the officers, and your verdict must be for the defendant. Were they designed for any other use? The only other use for which the government claims they were designed was that of enhancing the value of the goods themselves, increasing the facilities in sales, presenting them in an attractive form. I have no hesitation in saying to you that if the purpose of using the boxes was to enhance the value of the goods presented for sale, to a purchaser for use, then the boxes were intended for another use than that of transportation simply. Now you will say, from the evidence, whether they were intended simply for the purposes of transportation or not. If they were, your verdict will be for the defendant. If you find they were intended for other use, that they were intended to enhance the value of the goods, to aid in obtaining a better price, to increase the value on sale, then they are liable to the duty imposed by the government.
(Distrlct C01.IJTt, 8. D. New York. November IS. 1800.)
B.unUnTl'TOT-PREFERENOE OF THB UNITED STATBS-ACOOUNTING-PROVISIOIUL DER-RES JUDICATA.
A dividend warrant having been drawn in 1871 in favor of H., but never delivered, and tbeUnited States having thereafter established a claim against the bankruptB whicb Is ent\tled to a preference. and the circuit court having thereafter. on the application of H. t directed payment by the assignee of the warrant to H. upon her executing a bona for repayment to the assignee, if it should be determined thereafter tbat the assignee was bound to repay the United States any moneys previously paid out on similar warrants, and the district court. in an accounting by the assignee. on application of the United States for the moneys in bis hands. having directed the payment to the United States of such moneys,. not including the warrants which appeared on the credit side of the assignee's account. hekJ.. that neither order was res adjudicata in favor of tbe petitioner, H., because (1) the circuit court order was a provisional one, and did not pass upon the meritB; and (2) the order of the distcictconrt, on accountlnlt, did not adjudicate tbe dividend in question to any one, but left it undisposed of; and that the subsequent determination in the circuit court. in anotber suit, tbat tbe United St&tes Wall entitled to all such moneys, deprived the petitioner of any equity. SllIE-PARTNERSHIP-BRANCH HOUSES-MARSHALING ASSETS-REV. ST. 5 5074The law has never recognized branch houses, conducting dltrerent businesses at different places, under somewhat ditrerent firm names, as constituting distinct estates, whose assets were to be marsbaled for the benefit of the different sets of creditors of each branch, where the copartners, carrying on botb branches, were identically the same. The object of sectioD 5074 of the Revised Statutes was not to create distinct estates in such cases to be marshaled separately, but to admit double proofs, upon double security, for the same debt. Accordingly held that, in such a CRse, the total assetB are liable 1m, for all the partnership debts, and that a claim of the United States was entitled to a preference upon the whole asset&, though ita claim arose solely out of the business of one of the branoh houae..
Petition of Matilda Hare, as Administratrix. RogerM. Sherman) for petitioner.