Vanacker v. Spalding

U.S. Circuit Court

Vanacker v. Spalding

24 F. 88, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2031

CourtUnited States Circuit Court

DecidedMay 26, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 F. 88 (Vanacker 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

Vanacker v. Spalding, 24 F. 88, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2031 (uscirct 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Blodgett, J.,

(orally.) The plaintiff imported to the city of Chicago certain bags or pouches made wholly of India rubber, which were classed as “toys,” and a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem assessed thereon. Heyl, pt. 2, p. 29, cl. 425. The importer contended that the goods in question were articles composed of “India rubber, not specially enumerated, or provided for,” and as such subject only to a duty' of 25 per cent, ad valorem. Heyl, pt. 2, p. 30, cl. 454. The goods in question are small India-rubber bags, which are intended for the purpose of being inflated with gas, thereby making a small balloon, to be used as a child’s plaything. The only question is whether such an article is a “toy” or “a manufacture of India rubber, not otherwise provided for.” I am of opinion that these goods are not “toys” in the form in which they are imported. In order to make them salable as toys, they must be inflated and closed so as to retain the gas, and, although this is but a slight addition to them, still they cannot be called playthings or toys until this process is completed. I am [89]*89therefore of opinion that these,good should have been classed as “manufactures of India rubber not specially enumerated,” and charged with a duty of 25 per cent, ad valoremy

The issue is found for the plaintiff.

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

Blodgett, J.,

(orally.) The plaintiff imported to the city of Chicago certain bags or pouches made wholly of India rubber, which were classed as “toys,” and a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem assessed thereon. Heyl, pt. 2, p. 29, cl. 425. The importer contended that the goods in question were articles composed of “India rubber, not specially enumerated, or provided for,” and as such subject only to a duty' of 25 per cent, ad valorem. Heyl, pt. 2, p. 30, cl. 454. The goods in question are small India-rubber bags, which are intended for the purpose of being inflated with gas, thereby making a small balloon, to be used as a child’s plaything. The only question is whether such an article is a “toy” or “a manufacture of India rubber, not otherwise provided for.” I am of opinion that these goods are not “toys” in the form in which they are imported. In order to make them salable as toys, they must be inflated and closed so as to retain the gas, and, although this is but a slight addition to them, still they cannot be called playthings or toys until this process is completed. I am [89]*89therefore of opinion that these,good should have been classed as “manufactures of India rubber not specially enumerated,” and charged with a duty of 25 per cent, ad valoremy

The issue is found for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. 88, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanacker-v-spalding-uscirct-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack