Mandel v. Spalding

26 F. 609
CourtUnited States Circuit Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1885
StatusPublished

This text of 26 F. 609 (Mandel v. Spalding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mandel v. Spalding, 26 F. 609 (uscirct 1885).

Opinion

Blodgett, J.

The plaintiffs imported a class of goods known to the trade as “arrasene.” It was classed by the collector as a manufacture of silk, under the last paragraph of Schedule L, § 2502, as amended by the act of March 3, 1883, and charged at 50 per cent. ad valorem. Plaintiff claims it is dutiable, as silk thread, at 30 per cent, acl valorem, under paragraph 381 oí Heyl’s Compilation of the [610]*610Eevenue,Law. The goods in question are a manufacture formed of two or more strands or threads of silk, with short cross-threads interlaced or woven so as to make a kind of fringed thread or embroidery yam, and the proof shows that the only use of these goods is for an embroidering thread or yarn. I think, therefore, that while it is not produced by spinning in the manner of ordinary thread, and has passed through another process in order to produce it in the condition it now is, at the same time, as its only use is for embroidering thread, it should be properly classed as silk thread, and charged with 30 per cent, ad valorem duty. The issue is therefore found for the plaintiffs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 F. 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandel-v-spalding-uscirct-1885.