Beadleston v. United States

S.D. New York

Beadleston v. United States

104 F. 295, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 13, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 F. 295 (Beadleston v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beadleston v. United States, 104 F. 295, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

DROWN, District Judge.

The question is, are the bottle, the cork and the tin foil “materials” “used in the manufacture” of the “article” exported? The article is labeled “Imperial Beer Brewed Specially for Export- — Gold Label,” etc. Mere cases or coverings are not deemed a part of the “article exported,” and do not enter into its “manufacture.” Notwithstanding the evidence as to steaming, I think on full consideration that the “article” is essentially the beer, without reference to the bottle; that the bottle is not 'a material part of the identity of the beer or of its quality or marketable identity as beer, but only a convenient case for offering it to the public in a specific recognizable form, which serves no other essential use. As such I think the bottles, corks, etc., are not entitled to a drawback under the act of October 1, 1890. Wheeler v. U. S. (D. C.) 75 Fed. 654.

Judgment for defendant.

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

DROWN, District Judge.

The question is, are the bottle, the cork and the tin foil “materials” “used in the manufacture” of the “article” exported? The article is labeled “Imperial Beer Brewed Specially for Export- — Gold Label,” etc. Mere cases or coverings are not deemed a part of the “article exported,” and do not enter into its “manufacture.” Notwithstanding the evidence as to steaming, I think on full consideration that the “article” is essentially the beer, without reference to the bottle; that the bottle is not 'a material part of the identity of the beer or of its quality or marketable identity as beer, but only a convenient case for offering it to the public in a specific recognizable form, which serves no other essential use. As such I think the bottles, corks, etc., are not entitled to a drawback under the act of October 1, 1890. Wheeler v. U. S. (D. C.) 75 Fed. 654.

Judgment for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F. 295, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beadleston-v-united-states-nysd-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack