Magone v. Wiederer

Citations

• 16 S. Ct. 122
• 159 U.S. 555
• 40 L. Ed. 258
• 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2322

Syllabus

<p>The plaintiff below imported into the port of New York in 1887 and 1888 a quantity of pieces of glass, cut in shapes to order and with bevelled edges, intended to be used in the manufacture of clocks. The collector classified them as “articles of glass, cut, engraved,” etc., subject to a duty of .15 per cent ad valorem. The importer claimed that they were dutiable as “parts of clocks,” and as such subject to a duty of 30 per cent ad valorem,; paid the duty imposed under protest; and brought this action to recover the excess. The trial court instructed the jury that the burden was on the plaintiff to' establish that the articles were parts of clocks; that in determining that question it would not be necessary for the jury to say that they were exclusively used for that purpose ; that the fact that an article chiefly used for one purpose had been used by some for a purpose for which it was not. originally intended would not change its tariff nomenclature; that if the jury should find that the articles were- chiefly used as parts of clocks, that that would determine their tariff classification, but on the other hand, that they must be chiefly and principally used for that purpose; that if they are articles with no distinguishing characteristic, just as applicable for use in fancy boxes or in coach lamps as they are for clocks, then it would be entirely proper to say that they have no distinguishing characteristics as parts of clocks; that they might be used for one purpose just as well as for another; and if the jury should find as to those articles, or any of them, that they have several uses to which they are perfectly applicable, then as to those articles the verdict should be for the defendant. Held, that the.instructions were manifestly correct, and that in giving the rule of- chief use, the principles by which it was to be ascertained were fully stated exactly in accordance with the law announced by this court in Magone v. Heller, 150 U. S. 70.</p>