A. Kastor & Bros. v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

A. Kastor & Bros. v. United States

167 F. 993, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5375

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedFebruary 10, 1909

DocketNo. 5,182

StatusPublished

This text of 167 F. 993 (A. Kastor & Bros. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. Kastor & Bros. v. United States, 167 F. 993, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5375 (circtsdny 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

It is obvious that tbe Instrument in question is not one which can be effectively used for most of the purposes for which an ordinary pocket-knife is used. Still no one would deny that it is" a knife. I think few people would term it a toy. The evidence does not‘satisfy me that it is commercially known as a toy, or is in fact used by children ás a plaything, which is the real test of [995]*995what is a toy. My opinion is that it would be more proper to classify it as a manufacture of metal than as a knife or a toy, in which case, as suggested in the General Appraisers’ decision, the duty would be still higher. But the only question on this appeal is whether it should be assessed as a toy, instead of as a knife, and in my opinion its assessment as a knife is more nearly correct than its assessment as ,a toy. .

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOLT, District Judge.

It is obvious that tbe Instrument in question is not one which can be effectively used for most of the purposes for which an ordinary pocket-knife is used. Still no one would deny that it is" a knife. I think few people would term it a toy. The evidence does not‘satisfy me that it is commercially known as a toy, or is in fact used by children ás a plaything, which is the real test of [995]*995what is a toy. My opinion is that it would be more proper to classify it as a manufacture of metal than as a knife or a toy, in which case, as suggested in the General Appraisers’ decision, the duty would be still higher. But the only question on this appeal is whether it should be assessed as a toy, instead of as a knife, and in my opinion its assessment as a knife is more nearly correct than its assessment as ,a toy. .

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F. 993, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-kastor-bros-v-united-states-circtsdny-1909.