Tyre & Spring Works Co. v. Spalding

116 U.S. 541, 6 S. Ct. 498, 29 L. Ed. 720, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1795
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 1, 1886
Docket921
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 116 U.S. 541 (Tyre & Spring Works Co. v. Spalding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tyre & Spring Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U.S. 541, 6 S. Ct. 498, 29 L. Ed. 720, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1795 (1886).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court.

The Chicago Tyre and'Spring Works Company, an Illinois corporation, brought this suit against Jesse Spalding, Collector of Customs at Chicago, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, to recover moneys alleged to have been illegally exacted as duties on imported merchandise embraced in three entries made at the customhouse in Chicago in 1882. The declaration did not mention what the merchandise was. After plea, the parties stipulated in writing that the cause should be. tried by the court without *542 á jury. It was so tried, and on the 31st of January, 1884, the following entry, entitled in the suit and headedJudgment,” was made in the records of the court:

“ This day came the plaintiff and defendant, by their attorneys, and, the parties having heretofore filed their stipulation in writing, waiving a jury, and submitting the facts in issue to the court, and the court having heard the evidence and arguments .of counsel, and duly considered the same, now finds that the steel-tire blooms, in the declaration mentioned, are produced by first casting a flat round ingot of steel, somewhat in the shape of a cheese or grindstone, with no hole through the centre. It is then reheated and hammered, so as to reduce its thickness, thereby compacting its grain or fibre; a hole is swedged through its centre; and it is then hammered on the horn or beak of an anvil, thereby expanding its circumference, and forming a grain or fibre in its circumferential direction, ■and, when intended for tires of driving-wheels, the rudiments of a flange are formed or swedged also upon the outer periphery of the circle. In this form these blooms are ready for rolling, and are imported at this stage of development. ' On arriving in this country, they are heated and placed in the rolling-machine, where they are rolled or spun into the size and shape adapting them for use for tires for locomotive driving-wheels or car-wheels, and, after being rolled, the inner and outer surfaces are turned and finished in a lathe. The court finds that, when imported, these blooms had passed. through an important stage in the process of manufacture into steel tires, and are, therefore, articles of steel partly manufactured, and were, therefore, properly classified for duties as manufactures of steel, not otherwise provided for. The court, therefore, finds the issues joined for the defendant. And thereupon the plaintiff, by its attorney, moves the court for a new trial herein, and the court, being now fully advised upon said motion, overrules the same and awards judgment. It is thereupon considered and adjudged, by the court, that the defendant do have and recover of the plaintiff his costs in this behalf expended, amounting to-dollars and-cents, and that he have execution therefor.”

*543 On the same day the following stipulation, entitled in the, ’ cause and signed by the attorneys for the parties, was filed:

“ It is hereby stipulated and agreed between the parties to the above-entitled cause, that, on the trial of the same, it was proved that the plaintiff imported the steel blooms mentioned in the pleadings and proofs in this case, at the port of Chicago, during the year 1882, and entered them at the- custom-house as steel blooms, and that the same were assessed a duty of 45 per cent, ad valorem, by the defendant, collector, as £ manufactures of steel, not otherwise provided for,’, under the provisions of Schedule E, § 2504, Revised Statutes; that the plaintiff paid the duty levied thereon, under, protest, and in apt time took an appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, claiming therein that the blooms in question, were not dutiable as manufactures of steel, not otherwise provided for, and were not specially provided for by name in the tariff, but were dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem, as £ steel, in any form, not otherwise provided for,’ under the provisions of Schedule E of the same section; that the Secretary of the Treasury decided such ap.peal, affirming the action of the collector, and that this suit was afterwards commenced, in due time, to recover the fifteen per cent, duty alleged to have been collected in excess, and so paid under protest; that issue was joined, and, a jury having been waived in accordance with the statute, .the case was submitted to the Court for trial; that the proof shows that the steel tire blooms in question are produced by first casting a flat round ingot of steel, somewhat in the' shape of a cheese, or grindstone, with no hole through' the centre. It is then reheated and hammered, so as to reduce its thickness, thereby compacting its grain or fibre; a hole is swedged through its centre; and it is then hammered on the horn or beak of an anvil, thereby expanding its circumference, and forming a grain . or fibre in its circumferential direction, and, when intended for tires, the rudiments of a flange are formed or swedged. also upon the outer periphery of the circle. In this form, these blooms are ready for rolling and are imported at this stage of development. On arrival in this country,, they are reheated and placed in the rolling-machine, where they are rolled or *544 spun into the size or shape adapting them for use for tires for locomotive driving-wheels or car-wheels, and, after being rolled, the inner and outer surfaces are turned and finished in a lathe; the work which had been expended on them to bring them from the ingot stage to tire blooms is shown to have been equal to ten r fifteen dollars per ton; that these blooms are classed in trade and commerce with steel bars, steel ingots, steel billets, steel rail blooms, steel plates, and all sorts of forgings, and are forms of steel known in trade and commerce as steel tire blooms -f that a steel casting which has been hammered ready for rolling is a bloom; that hammering an ingot to prepare it for rolling is called blooming, regardless of the shape into which the steel is made by rolling or hammering; that, when imported, these blooms were ready for rolling and were im-, ported at this stage of development. And the Court, after hearing all of the evidence, found, that, when imported, these blooms had passed through an important stage in the process of manufacture into steel tires, and -are, therefore, articles of steel partly manufactured, and were, therefore, properly classified for duties as manufactures of steel, not otherwise provided for. And the Court found the issues for the defendant. That the plaintiff excepted to said finding of the Court, viz., that the blooms were properly classified for duties as manufactures of steel, not otherwise provided for, as not being in accordance with the evidence, and moved the Court to grant a new trial, which motion was overruled and judgment was entered for the defendant.”

There is no bill of exceptions, but the plaintiff has sued out a writ of error to review the judgment.

Schedule E of § 2504 of the Revised Statutes, 2d ed., p. 465, in force at the time of these entries, contains the following provisions as to duties on imports:

“ All manufactures of steel, or of which steel shall be a component part, not otherwise provided for: forty-five per centum ad valorem.

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

Related

Peavy-Byrnes Lumber Co. v. Commissioner
31 B.T.A. 985 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1935)
Palmer v. Aeolian Co.
46 F.2d 746 (Eighth Circuit, 1931)
Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. McLouth
275 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court, 1928)
In re Appeal of Hamano
1 D. Haw. 344 (D. Hawaii, 1903)
Fort Worth City Co. v. Smith Bridge Co.
151 U.S. 294 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Saltonstall, Collector of Customs v. Birtwell
150 U.S. 417 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Saltonstall v. Birtwell
150 U.S. 417 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Birtwell v. Saltonstall
39 F. 383 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 U.S. 541, 6 S. Ct. 498, 29 L. Ed. 720, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyre-spring-works-co-v-spalding-scotus-1886.