Godwin v. United States

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

Godwin v. United States

71 F. 950, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2515

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1896

DocketNo. 1,892

StatusPublished

This text of 71 F. 950 (Godwin 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

Godwin v. United States, 71 F. 950, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2515 (circtsdny 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

These were paintings in oil upon panels of papier maché to go into the frame of a false door, a part of the same invoice, but assessed separately, for a part of the interior decorations of a house. They were considered to be wood panels, and assessed as manufactures of wood, under paragraph 230 of the tariff act of 1890, against a protest that they should be assessed at a lower rate as “paintings in oil,” under paragraph 465. The testimony taken since shows clearly that they are not manufactures of wood, and that the false door frame was to be, in that form, their frame. Together they would not be a door, but only paintings in a frame imitating a door. Oil paintings must be done upon something becoming a part of them, and that may as well be papier maché as anything. These, as they were assessed, were simply paintings in oil, exactly provided for in paragraph 465. That they were intended for, and were to become, parts of an imitation of a door, would not make them any the less so, as was said of ivory keys which were to become parts of pianos, in Robertson v. Gerdau, 132 U. S. 454, 10 Sup. Ct. 119. Judgment reversed. ■

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

These were paintings in oil upon panels of papier maché to go into the frame of a false door, a part of the same invoice, but assessed separately, for a part of the interior decorations of a house. They were considered to be wood panels, and assessed as manufactures of wood, under paragraph 230 of the tariff act of 1890, against a protest that they should be assessed at a lower rate as “paintings in oil,” under paragraph 465. The testimony taken since shows clearly that they are not manufactures of wood, and that the false door frame was to be, in that form, their frame. Together they would not be a door, but only paintings in a frame imitating a door. Oil paintings must be done upon something becoming a part of them, and that may as well be papier maché as anything. These, as they were assessed, were simply paintings in oil, exactly provided for in paragraph 465. That they were intended for, and were to become, parts of an imitation of a door, would not make them any the less so, as was said of ivory keys which were to become parts of pianos, in Robertson v. Gerdau, 132 U. S. 454, 10 Sup. Ct. 119. Judgment reversed. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F. 950, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godwin-v-united-states-circtsdny-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack