.:'
v.
M"'GONE.
1.59
ant respectively moved court t() nirect the jury to find a verdict his favor. . . ., , Stephen. .G. ,(Jlarke and pharles f<:>r plaintiffs. Edward'M''ltcheU,U.S. Atty.,snd ThomaaGreenwood, U. S. Atty., for deferidant. . , tAcoMisE, Circuit J"UdM,{orally.) The iruga in suit are of like, characteror desorlptionto Wilton or Toumay 'Velvet carpets. The provisions fottheaeand other carpetsdr clli'petings',and also for rugs, contained in Kofthe tariff a'ct of March 3, 1883, and similar provisions containQd in various other tariffa.cts, from 1861 to March 3,1883,-Act 68, § 13, (12 U. S. e;t.178j) Act July 14, 1862, c. l63; §!9; (Id;'543j) 30,1864, c. 171, §'5, (13 U. S. St. 202;}((Ae( March 2, 18'67 ,c. 197, § f, (14 U. S.St. '5:51Jj) .Schedule L, § little doubt as to the que$ti'on'raised be.re. lt appears that epngress, after providing for a greattnany different kinds of. by names, or by descrill,tive terms atIve of tHe ma'tenals of whlCh they are-composed, hasfu.rther provlded that of like character or description to any Of these enumerated carpets OrC8Tpetings shall besnbject to the rate of duty imposed on,such carpetor'carpetings. :B:aving made provision for sudh rttgs,it has then provided that all other rugs, not inclUded. inthBtprovision, shall be l!ubjecttO duty at the rate of 40 per cent. ad valorem. There is no reason to suppose',' as contended by the plaintiff insuppdrt of his cl8.iin, intended that ,rugs of like character or description to some one of tbe various enumerated carpets or carpetings, when they are, or ate ma,de '..om, portions thereof, shouid 'pa,y the same rate of duty as is itnposed'Pnsucb carpet or ca'rpetings, but, when tIDteo made, should Pay rate of duty. ,. Ontbe contrary, 'there if: reason to eonelude' that congress considered the character or description of rugs, if like the charaCterpr deseri any 0l1e of such Clitp'ets' or carpetings, 8 more impor,talitelement infixing their classifieationthantheir mode of I therefore direct a verdict for the defendant. . "
,
'INGltRsoLL
et al. 'lJ. ,
MAGONlt,
(Oircuit Oourt, B. D. New
February 18, ;1.891.)
"
'traveUtll!' rugS whioh were imported during t-he year 1888, and which are artlclee generally used for wrapping about the legs or the body of a person when traveling, and as coverings for lounges and beds, or for throwing over the body of a person when lying on a lounge or bed, are not duitable under the provisions for rugs conof; the act ot
'. .
.
a
U.,s.
:At LaW. During
,j,n,tQ/
1888 :the plaintiffs ma:deatl impodation from England York of certain woolen II
'
I'EDER:ALREPORtliR ,\rol. 48. for dutya:s" woolen under the provision for "woolen shawls," contained in-Schedule K ofthetaritfact ofMarch was exacted thereon at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 40 per centum tKIlo'rello, or 3Q 1?er, pound anli 35 per ,ad valorem, by the defendant, ascolleqtoJ: gf that Against aJ;ld this the 'July protested, claiming articles were or car#age as d'lltlableat the rate of 40 per 'centum ad the for" all * * * other [qund in ule K of the aforesaid tarift" act, (Tariff Ind.) New j 9,78,) in 'a,pco;rdance with the' decision onhe <;lepartment promul;;M:arch "flie plainti:(fs at the made due appeals, whicr:were decided},.d,versely to with the decision (lftge department December 11, 18a8,a,nd, after such adduly b,rought ,to recover tHJduties exacted on these in eXCeSS of 40 per centum ad valore,rn."" On the trial, it appeared,that'the article13, in suit made of wool, and were of two ,5 feet long by 5 feet and2iocheswide, pounds wHp., fringe presel;J.ting. on a bright colpJ.'ed striped ,ll.pl?earance, aoQ, On the reve1'fleside ,a one iri:two colors ;t,heother, 6 feet f\nd 2 10l;J.g .by 5 fl'l,Eiltanq. 2 ioch,es wi,de, 8 poundsa,ndq, without bound on aipls, edgel3 with a b,inding, and it dull striped alike, or nearly 00 both sides; ,that the weight of each tMn that of that those ha,,d, 61),),pO,wn to,'" :a,nd comme,+,ce in this c.o,ffi,',',tr,y"o,n,lY fW ,the, 15 tPl\t ,SUell, artjcles ,We,Ili;l ,never known i:n trade"apdcommercejp"tpiscountry but as such genera.lly used or the: Dody of a an4 for wraPmpgabout the
'Webster, is "a cloth of wool, cotton, silk, or hair, used especially by women as a loose covering for the neck and shoulders;" that a "rug," as defined by Webster, is "a coarse, nappy, woolen fabric, used for various purposes,-as (a) Jor: ,cover of a bed; (b) for protecting the carpet before a fire-place; (c) for proteoting the legs against the cold in riding, as a railway rug.'" W. Wickham Smith and D. Ivea Mackie, for , " , ,,' _ " EdwardM'Uchell, U. S. Atty., and Thomas GreenwQOd,AsSt. U.S. Atfy.) for LACOMBE,Ci'i'c'uit (orally.) The articles in suit were kfi()wh in trade and commerce of the country at and prior to the of,the tariff a,9t,pf1883 as .and, by no other Qarp,e. , "travelillg. , "Rygs" have been provlded for eo MmWl in the dlfferent tanff acts for nearly 30
IN RE CARRIER.
161
years past,-Act March 2, 1861, c. 68, § 13, (12 U. S. St. 178.;) Act July 14-, 1862, c. 163,§ 9, (Id. 543;) Act June 30, 1864, c. 171, § 5, (13 U. S. St. 202;) Act March 2, 1867, c. 197, § 1, (14 U. S. 559;) Schedu1e·L of section 2504, Rev.St.; Act March 3,1883, Schedule K, (22 U. S. St. 488,)-and always in connection with provisions for carpets or carpetings, and for articles of a similar nature, and, like them, used on floors. "Traveling rugs" are generally used for wrapping about the legs or the body of a. person when traveling, and as coverings for lounges or beds, and forthrowing over the body of a person when lying on a lounge or bed. "Traveling rugs" have never been provided for eo nomine in any tariff act, and, acoording to the evidence in this case, have been known to trade and commerce of this country only for the past 15 years. In view of the history of the legislation of congress concerning "rugs," as evidenced by the different tariff acts from 1861 to1883, both: inclusive,! and of the evident intention with which it has used the word "rugs" in paragraph 378, in SchedUle K of the tariff act of 1883, I am constrained to direct a verdict .for the defendant.
In re
CARRIER
et al. October 29, 1891.)
(DZstrlct Court, D. Nf/W
BJ.NXRUPTOY-PROCEEDINGS TO REALIZE ESTA.TE-OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
Where an assignee in bankruptcyaPPl.ies for a rule persoDsclaiming lots' by purcp,ase froI!l the bankrupt, ,to cause why they should not be turned out of possession and restrained fro,m interfering with a sale by the assignee, 'and they appear before the register and defend on the merits, and then fail to except to his' report, on which the rule is made aosolute, it is too late for them thereafter to seek to have the proceedings set aside' 841 Void for want of jurisdiction in the court as & court of
In Bankruptcy. This was: a petition by A. J.' and J. L. Long to set aside certain orders.in bankruptcy proceedings against Carrier & Baum. The opinions of the court on former questions arising in the same proceedings are reported in 46 Fed. Rep. 850 and 47 Fed. Rep. 438. Jame8· Fitzsimmons! for petitioners. L. B. D. Reese, for assignee.. REED, J.-A petition was filed December 81, 1889, by L.,B. Duff, assignee of Carrier & setting forth that at the time of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy A. R Baum was the owner of certain lots in the borough of Freeport, .Armstrong county, Pa., and reciting at length of title by which said Baum held the lots. The petition further averred that the said lots, title to which it was claimed had passed to the petitioner as assignee, were held by one Ingersoll. who had been put into the building on the lots by Bnum for the purpose of taking care of ,and that Ingersoll had agreediJafter. some .legal proceedings v,48F.no.2-11