Procter v. Spalding

U.S. Circuit Court

Procter v. Spalding

26 F. 610

DecidedDecember 15, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 26 F. 610 (Procter 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

Procter v. Spalding, 26 F. 610 (uscirct 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Blodgett, J.

The plaintiffs imported a quantity of steel picks, spike hammers, or mauls, for driving spikes, and clawed bars. They were classed by the collector as a manufacture of metals, under clause 216 of Heyl’s Compilation, and charged with duty at 45 per cent, ad valorem. Plaintiffs claim they should have been classed as “track tools,” and charged with duty at two and a half cents per pound, under clause 165 of Heyl’s Compilation. The proof shows that the goods in question are known to the trade as “track tools,” and used mainly by the railroad companies in laying and repairing railroad tracks, although some of them are used to some extent for mining purposes. I conclude, therefore, that under the proof the proper commercial designation of these goods is “track tools,” and that they fall properly within the provisions of clause 165, as contended, and should have been charged with duty at two and a half cents per pound.

The issue is found for the plaintiffs.

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

Blodgett, J.

The plaintiffs imported a quantity of steel picks, spike hammers, or mauls, for driving spikes, and clawed bars. They were classed by the collector as a manufacture of metals, under clause 216 of Heyl’s Compilation, and charged with duty at 45 per cent, ad valorem. Plaintiffs claim they should have been classed as “track tools,” and charged with duty at two and a half cents per pound, under clause 165 of Heyl’s Compilation. The proof shows that the goods in question are known to the trade as “track tools,” and used mainly by the railroad companies in laying and repairing railroad tracks, although some of them are used to some extent for mining purposes. I conclude, therefore, that under the proof the proper commercial designation of these goods is “track tools,” and that they fall properly within the provisions of clause 165, as contended, and should have been charged with duty at two and a half cents per pound.

The issue is found for the plaintiffs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F. 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/procter-v-spalding-uscirct-1885.