Summary

Portrait of Henry Billings Brown Henry Billings Brown Seeberger v. Schlesinger — Opinion of the Court

We do not wish to be understood as holding that, if the metal be a mere incident or an immaterial part of the completed article, as, for instance, the screws or knobs upon an article of household furniture, or the buttons upon an article of clothing, such articles should be classified as manufactures in part of metal; but where, as in this case, they form a necessary and substantial part of the article, we think this clause should determine their classification.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Henry Billings Brown Henry Billings Brown Seeberger v. Schlesinger — Opinion of the Court

Ct. 607, photographic albums made of paper, leather, metal clasps, and plated clasps, the paper being worth more than all the rest of the materials put together, were held not to be liable to duty as 'manufactures and articles of leather, or of which leather shall be a component part,' but as manufactures of paper, or of which paper was the component material of chief value, not specially enumerated or provided for.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Henry Billings Brown Henry Billings Brown Seeberger v. Schlesinger — Opinion of the Court

Particularly is this so in view of the fact that opera glasses are frequently made of glass and metal alone, or with an outer covering of leather, which would form an inconsiderable part of the total expense. It would be obviously unjust that these cheaper glasses should pay a duty of 45 per cent., while the more expensive glasses with shell coverings are dutiable only as manufactures of shell at 25 per cent.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature