Albert Lorsch & Co. v. United States

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

Albert Lorsch & Co. v. United States

135 F. 214, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5190

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

DecidedNovember 11, 1904

DocketNo. 3,539

StatusPublished

This text of 135 F. 214 (Albert Lorsch & Co. 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

Albert Lorsch & Co. v. United States, 135 F. 214, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5190 (circtsdny 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

HAZEL, District Judge.

I concur in the decision of the Board, of General Appraisers. It is thought to be reasonably clear that by the use of the word “dimensions” in paragraph 435 of the tariff [216]*216act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 192 [U. S. Comp, St. 1901, p. 1676], as applied to “imitations of diamonds or other precious stones, composed of glass or paste,” Congress intended the word to apply to any single dimension. True, the literal meaning of the word “dimensions” includes length, breadth, and thickness, but there is excellent authority for holding that “the plural includes the singular.” Other reasons, unnecessary to here repeat, appear in the opinion of the Board of General Appraisers to show the intention of Congress to regard the word “dimensions” as covering any single dimension.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers sustaining the collector, who assessed a duty at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem under section 112 of the tariff act (July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule B, 30 Stat. 158 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1635]), for manufactures of glass or paste, is affirmed.

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

HAZEL, District Judge.

I concur in the decision of the Board, of General Appraisers. It is thought to be reasonably clear that by the use of the word “dimensions” in paragraph 435 of the tariff [216]*216act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 192 [U. S. Comp, St. 1901, p. 1676], as applied to “imitations of diamonds or other precious stones, composed of glass or paste,” Congress intended the word to apply to any single dimension. True, the literal meaning of the word “dimensions” includes length, breadth, and thickness, but there is excellent authority for holding that “the plural includes the singular.” Other reasons, unnecessary to here repeat, appear in the opinion of the Board of General Appraisers to show the intention of Congress to regard the word “dimensions” as covering any single dimension.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers sustaining the collector, who assessed a duty at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem under section 112 of the tariff act (July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule B, 30 Stat. 158 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1635]), for manufactures of glass or paste, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 F. 214, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-lorsch-co-v-united-states-circtsdny-1904.