United States v. Pinney, Casse & Lackey Co.

105 F. 934, 45 C.C.A. 138, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4045
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 6, 1900·No. No. 22·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, which reversed the decision of the board of United States general appraisers, which had sustained the action of the collector. 99 Fed. 720. The goods in controversy are known as “Scotch Hollands,” or “John King & Son’s Hollands,” which are made and used for window shades in houses, and are manufactured or prepared from cotton cloth which had been woven in the ordinary way. Prior to the tariff act of 1897, this class of goods had been classified for tariff purposes as cotton cloth, bleached or colored, under the clauses of the tariff acts known as “countable clauses,” and whi.ch, in the act of 1897, are contained in paragraphs 304 to 809, and which provide a rate of duty according to the number of threads to the square inch and the weight and value per square yard. Paragraph 311 of the act of 1897 contained a new provision, which was “cotton cloth, filled or coated, three cents per square yard and twenty per centum ad valorem.” Against the protest of the importers, the collector classified the goods in question under this paragraph as filled cotton cloth, and his decision was sustained by the majority of the board of general appraisers. The point in controversy is whether the importa-, tions in question, which are the product of John King & Son’s well-known factory in Scotland, seven-eighths of their goods coming to the United States, are filled cotton or merely starched cotton. It is [935] to be premised, that the term “filled” is not, strictly speaking, a commercial term; that is to say, no goods are ever bought' or sold or inquired about as filled goods. The term is a technical one, used by the manufacturers, and relates to the process of manufacture, and therefore is also employed, to a certain extent, by the commission merchant, or by the importer, who is naturally familiar with the method of manufacture by which the goods which he sells are presented to the public. To a limited extent it is a term used in commerce, but its meaning depends upon its signification among the manufacturers to whose business it relates. Formerly, in England, the term “'filled cotton goods” was synonymous with “weighted goods,” and meant that the interstices of the fabric were loaded or weighted with foreign substances, among which inorganic substances, like china clay, chalk, or Glauber’s salts were used; and that, although starch was used, some other material, like clay, or perhaps glue or glucose, must be used also. This weighting was for the purpose of giving to the goods “a factitious solidity,” and thus of deceiving the inconsiderate purchaser. The following extracts from Depierre on “The Finishing of Cotton Goods” illustrate the method and the substances which were used in this class of filling:

“Afterwards come the filled or weighted finishings, where considerable quantities of earthy matters are incorporated, cither on one side or both sides of the fabric, by means of the hack-starching machine, or the ordinary and friction starch mangles.”
“The principal qualities that a. body destined to give weight in finishing must possess are a fine white colour, in a humous powder, of a moderate price, insoluble in water, and in the ordinary agents used in finishing it must not he influenced by the emanations gcnerally.fonnd in air, nor must it he poisonous. The bodies possessing these qualities a.re china clay, whiting, or chalk, gypsum, talc, steatite, and kaolin. These substances are those most generally employed.”

The interstices of cotton cloth are also necessarily filled in order to finish or prepare the goods for the purposes for which they are designed, and, when thus filled, the completed goods contain no element of deception.

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

United States v. Pinney, Casse & Lackey Co., 105 F. 934, 45 C.C.A. 138, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4045 (2d Cir. 1900).

105 F. 934 (United States v. Pinney, Casse & Lackey Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. H. Rosenthal Co.
609 F.2d 999 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1979)
Bruce Duncan Co. v. United States
80 Cust. Ct. 48 (U.S. Customs Court, 1978)
Ryder v. Schlichter
126 F. 487 (Third Circuit, 1903)