714 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



[Septkmbi-.r 1, iyi7. 



rubbers contain resin, and that the resin content varies, not only 

 as between dilTercnt families, but also in the same family, when 

 obtained from different sources. He explained the chemistry 

 of the vulcanization of rubber, so far as it is understood at 

 the present time. 



The government then called Mr. Montgomery, examiner of 

 chemicals and drugs in the Appraiser's Office, who testified as 

 to the custom in examining Jelutong, and stated that it was his 

 belief that it has been returned as a crude drug. William H. 

 Quinton testified along similar lines for the government, and 

 introduced in evidence invoices of importations of various rub- 

 bers, including Jelutong. 



H. L. Brown stated on behalf of the government that he was 

 using about 25 tons of Jelutong a year in the manufacture of 

 chewing gum. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that 

 he did not use Jelutong as such, but extracted the resins and 

 used them in chewing gum, selling the remaining rubber to rub- 

 ber manufacturers. He said further, on cross-examination, that 

 it was not possible to use the untreated Jelutong in chewing 

 gum. 



The case was then closed, and both attorneys were ordered 

 to file briefs. The opinion, delivered by General Appraiser Hay 

 for the Board, reviews the testimony as already set forth and 

 concludes : 



The above statement of fact would seem to conclusively de- 

 cide the question at issue. 



There is no doubt from this testimony but that the commodity 

 is known throughout the trade of the United States as crude 

 rubber, and, that india rubber and crude rubber are the same 

 thing. Nor is there any doubt from this testimony but that it 

 is used for the same purpose as other kinds of rubber and has 

 the same qualities, the difference being only one of degree. In 

 our judgment the testimony clearly brings Jelutong within the 

 purview of paragraph 513. This conclusion we think is in line 

 with the dictionary meaning of the word, the encyclopedic 

 authorities and such technical authorities as treat of the subject. 



The protest is therefore sustained and the collector will re- 

 liquidate the entry accordingly. 



Bo.\RD OF U. S. Gener.al Appr.\isers. 



Entry 197,286 returned herewith. 



JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 



P .^CIXE RUBBER CO. v. Industrial Commission, Supreme 

 •I- »■ Court of Wisconsin, May 15, 1917. An employe of the 

 rubber company was seated in a room in the factory at the noon 

 hour eating his lunch, in accordance with a long-existing custom 

 known by and tacitly consented to by his employer, when a large 

 piece of rubber unexpectedly fell on him and broke his leg. He 

 was aw-arded compensation by the Industrial Commission, and 

 the employer appealed. The Court decided that he had been, 

 at the time of the accident, engaged in service growing out of 

 or incidental to his employment within the meaning of the Work- 

 men's Compensation Act. The award was therefore affirmed, 

 with costs, to the employe. [Northeastern Reporter. Vol. 162, 

 page 664.] 



Inner Shoe Tire Co. v. Kn.\pp-Brown Co., Supreme Court of 

 South Dakota, June 26, 1917. The Inner Shoe Tire Co., manu- 

 facturer of a lining for tire casings, made an oral contract with 

 the Knapp-Brown people to vulcanize their product into the 

 casings. The manufacturer supplied order blanks and made a 

 shipment on an order written on one of them. They claim that 

 this was an outright sale, while the vulcanizers claim that they 

 acted merely as agents and the goods were shipped on consign- 

 ment in accordance with the verbal contract and that they were 

 returnable if they were not needed. A judgment in favor of the 

 Knapp-Brown people in the Municipal Court of Sioux City 

 was affirmed by the Supreme Court. [Northwestern Reporter, 

 Vol. 163. page 572.] 



Thermoid Rubber Co. v. Brictson, Supreme Court of South 

 Dakota, June 26, 1917. The Brictson Manufacturing Co. is the 



manufacturer of a rubber tread intended to protect tires and pre- 

 vent skidding. This company bought of the Thermoid Rubber 

 Co. tires and tubes which were to be used in conjunction with 

 its product. These were guaranteed to be the equal of any on 

 the market, but when they were delivered and sold they proved 

 defective. Because they were faulty many of the customers re- 

 fused to pay for either the tires or the treads. As the treads 

 were extensively advertised the company sustained a great loss 

 and brought suit to recover $25,000 damages. It was decided 

 that because the Thermoid company coidd sue the purchasers for 

 the value of the tires, they did not suffer so great a loss. This 

 judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court. [Northwestern 

 Reporter, Vol 163, page 567.] 



The B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Sewell Cushion Wheel Co., Su- 

 preme cotirt of Michigan, May 31. 1917. The B. F. Goodrich 

 Co. and its predecessor, the Diamond Rubber Co., for a number 

 of years, manufactured for the Sewell company, rubber cushions 

 used by them in a patented wheel for automobile trucks. The 

 cushions are made of the best grade rubber that could be pro- 

 cured and sold on a five-year guarantee. In October, 1913, an 

 order was placed for some of these cushions, and shipments 

 made to the amount of 979 pounds. It is conceded that the rub- 

 ber was under-cured and some 800 pounds returned to the fac- 

 tory to be re-cured. The Goodrich people submitted a sample 

 of a part of the rubber which they had re-cured which was satis- 

 factory. When the bulk of the re-cured rubber was returned it 

 was found to be of a poorer quality than that which the Sewell 

 people were used to getting and they could not use it because of 

 the five-year guarantee. They therefore notified the sellers that 

 the goods were held subject to their order. Fruitless negotia- 

 tions followed and suit was brought in the Circuit Court, where 

 a judgment in favor of the buyer was given and this was upheld 

 by the Supreme Court, with costs to the Sewell company. 

 [Northwestern Reporter, Vol. 163. page 5.] 



The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. E. W. Ward and Others, 

 St. Louis Court of Appeals, May 8. 1917. The Goodyear com- 

 pany sold a bill of goods consisting of tires and tubes to the 

 "New York Motor Car Co." which, it alleges, is composed of 

 E. \\', Ward, Oscar J. Mueller and Adolph Grohe. When the 

 case was first tried before a justice of the peace, he decided that 

 there was no cause for action against Mueller. In the Court of 

 .\ppeals evidence was introduced which showed that Mueller had 

 signed a contract for the sale of automobiles with the Elmore 

 .Manufacturing Co. and had shared the profits on sales made 

 under the agreement with the other members of the firm. He, 

 however, did not share in the profits of the repair department, 

 which was run in the name of the firm, but he used part of the 

 goods sold to pay the rent of the firm's office. It was therefore 

 decided that he was responsible for the debt with the others and 

 the case was remanded for further trial. [Southwestern Re- 

 porter, Vol. 195. page 75.] 



DooLiTTLE v. Savage Tire Co.. District Court of .Appeals, Sec- 

 ond District of California. April 19. 1917. M. G. Doolittle was 

 employed by the tire company as a salesman and made an agree- 

 ment with the sales manager to use his automobile in connection 

 with his work, for which use he was to receive a reasonable 

 compensation. He used the machine from the beginning of 

 .\ugust, 1913, until the end of .'\ugust. 1914. In March. 1914, a 

 new arrangement was made whereby the company supplied the 

 gasoline. Evidence showed that the value of the use of the auto- 

 mobile was $100 per month if he supplied the fuel and $75 a month 

 while it was supplied to him. Thus the total value of the use 

 of the machine figured about $1,000. Suit was brought in the 

 Superior Court and judgment found for that sum. The com- 

 pany appealed but the judgment was affirmed. [Pacific Reporter, 

 Vol. 165, Page 728.] 



Miller v. Harvey. Court of .appeals of New York. May 22, 

 1917. The general rule which concedes the delivery of goods, in 



