Summary

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Hartranft v. Meyer (149 U.S. 544…

An attempt is made to distinguish the facts of the cases in the particular that whereas, in the other cases, the imported goods were ribbons, and thus articles naturally fitted for hat and bonnet trimmings, in this case they are piece goods, bought and sold under the commercial designation of 'chinas' and 'marcelines,' and chiefly used for lining hats and bonnets.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Hartranft v. Meyer (149 U.S. 544…

And again: 'The evidence tends to show that chinas and marcelines are particularly adapted and intended to be used, and in fact are and long have been used, as inside appendages for hats, bonnets, and hoods, to trim and finish them, and that their substantial commercial value consists in that use. Are they or are they not trimmings, according to the natural meaning of that word?
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature