Blumenthal v. United States

72 F. 48, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2536
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedFebruary 12, 1896
DocketNo. 1,091
StatusPublished

This text of 72 F. 48 (Blumenthal 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
Blumenthal v. United States, 72 F. 48, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2536 (circtsdny 1896).

Opinion

COXE, District Judge

(orally). The importations are harmonicas, consisting of two parts, one made of wood and metal which may be called the harmonica proper, and the other a celluloid case to cover the same. These articles were imported by one importer and upon the same vessel. They were, however, in different boxes and covered by different invoices. The,evidence is that the cases have no use except for harmónica! covers,-and that any harmonica of the size im[49]*49ported will fit any of the (¡ases imported. If the collector was right in deciding that these articles are not toys he assessed duty upon them under the proper paragraphs relating to the materials of which they are composed, paragraphs 215 and 221, respectively, of the tariff act of 1890. The importer insists that they should have been classified under paragraph 486 of the same act as “toys.”

I understand that it is undisputed that in a former decision of this court harmonicas similar to these were held to be toys. The district attorney insists that the importer is not in a position to raise this question for the reason that he has in his protest called them “musical instruments.” The protest is in the alternative form, one clause clearly raising the question which is in dispute here. The testimony taken in this court seems to sustain the contention of the importer that: they are toys and have been so known for years. 1 see no reason why the importer is estopped by his alternative protest, or how the situation is changed because these toys were imported in different cases and under different invoices, there being no dispute that the parts referred to are intended for conjoint use and can be used in no other way.

I think the decision of the board should be reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 F. 48, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumenthal-v-united-states-circtsdny-1896.