G. B. Ritchie & Co. v. United States

S.D. New York

G. B. Ritchie & Co. v. United States

141 F. 664, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4919

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 5, 1905

DocketNo. 3,502

StatusPublished

This text of 141 F. 664 (G. B. Ritchie & Co. 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

G. B. Ritchie & Co. v. United States, 141 F. 664, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4919 (S.D.N.Y. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The Board of General Appraisers, has correctly found that the merchandise in question is flax noils. It was assessed for duty as tow of flax, under paragraph 326 of the-act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, §. 1, Schedule J, 30 Stat. 180 [U. S. Comp.. St. 1901, p. 1661]. It is claimed as dutiable as' “waste not specially provided for,” under paragraph 463, Schedule N, of said act 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1679]. The uncontradicted testimony taken in this court is to the effect that the merchandise is not flax, tow, and is flax waste. The only question, then, is whether the article-is dutiable as flax tow. by similitude. Inasmuch as there is a specific enumeration covering waste, the similitude clause cannot be applied.. Arthur’s Executors v. Butterfield, 125 U. S. 70, 8 Sup. Ct. 714, 31 L. Ed. 643.

The decision of the Board of -General Appraisers is reversed.

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

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The Board of General Appraisers, has correctly found that the merchandise in question is flax noils. It was assessed for duty as tow of flax, under paragraph 326 of the-act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, §. 1, Schedule J, 30 Stat. 180 [U. S. Comp.. St. 1901, p. 1661]. It is claimed as dutiable as' “waste not specially provided for,” under paragraph 463, Schedule N, of said act 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1679]. The uncontradicted testimony taken in this court is to the effect that the merchandise is not flax, tow, and is flax waste. The only question, then, is whether the article-is dutiable as flax tow. by similitude. Inasmuch as there is a specific enumeration covering waste, the similitude clause cannot be applied.. Arthur’s Executors v. Butterfield, 125 U. S. 70, 8 Sup. Ct. 714, 31 L. Ed. 643.

The decision of the Board of -General Appraisers is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 F. 664, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-b-ritchie-co-v-united-states-nysd-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack