{
  "id": 6754727,
  "name": "FREW QUI TAM against GRAHAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Frew v. Graham",
  "decision_date": "1817-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "176",
  "last_page": "177",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Taylor 176"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 N.C. 176"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2178,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "sha256": "dc509809f7069e61791005dd6415e8eb94f97f557a421eaec743e14ae8d5dfd4",
    "simhash": "1:59d637c5b882da7f",
    "word_count": 420
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:53:33.045765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "M^Kay, District Attorney, for the PlaifttifS'"
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FREW QUI TAM against GRAHAM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin, J.\ndelivered the opinion tf the Court\nUpon a view of the act of Congress of January, 1815, it appears to me, that a distinct tax is laid upon the manufacture of'iron in its^ two stages of pigs and bars. The making of them, we understand to he separate businesses\u00bb1 \u00edt is true that they may, and probably are, very often exercised by the same man ; but that makes\u2019 no difference. So may the same person have a tannery and a shoe shop. But the act is explicit, that both the leather and the shoes shall pay a tax. In all these instances, it is to be recollected, that it is the article, and not the manufacturer, that pays. And it would seem strange, when the own\u00e9'r \u00f3f a furnace makes pigs, one half of which he sells to a neighbouring owner of a forge, to be made into bar iron, and the other half is manufactured into bars.at his. own forge, that in the former case two dollars should be paid per ton, and in the latter, only one ! I understand the articles exempted from duty as being for the maker\u2019s own use, to mean for his own consumption, and not made fear 'profit.\nIiet judgment he given for the Plaintiff*",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FREW QUI TAM against GRAHAM.\nWhere a person makes pig iron at hs own furnace, which be works into bar iron at his own forge, the article is liable for a district duty, m each stage of its manufacture. The exemption of articles for the maker\u2019s own use, signifies for his own \u00ab\u00a1Ksuuip\u00edwa.\nTHIS was an action to recover the penalty of 0 50Q, under the act of Congress, for rion-payment of the tax op a quantity of pig iron. The Defendant was owner of a furnace, which he worked a part of the time between the 18th of April, 1815, and the 22d of February, 1816 ; in which time, he made 77,555 lbs. of pig iron; no part of which was made for sale, but the whole designed for his own use, to be made into bar iron at his own forge. The pigs were accordingly manufactured at the forge. The principal part of the iron was for sale, and the duty on that has been paid. The case was sent to this Court, to decide whether owners of furnaces are liable to pay taxes for pig iron, where it is ipatje by them.into bar iron*\nM^Kay, District Attorney, for the PlaifttifS'"
  },
  "file_name": "0176-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 175
}