Herrman v. United States

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

Herrman v. United States

62 F. 149, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2849

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

DecidedJune 29, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 62 F. 149 (Herrman 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

Herrman v. United States, 62 F. 149, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2849 (circtsdny 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

Certain plate glass was classified for duty under paragraph 116 of the tariff act of 1890. To this classification no objection is made. But it was also classified, under paragraph 118 of said act, as “cast polished plate glass silvered and beveled.” The importer protests against this classification, on the [150]*150ground that, while paragraph 116 in terms covers looking-glass plates, paragraph 118 does not refer to them. The evidence shows that the glasses in question are used for making looking glasses. It is not denied that they are “cast polished plate glass,” and there is no evidence that such glasses are commercially known as “looking glass .plates.” As congress has recognized “looking glass plates” as distinct from “cast polished plate glass silvered,” and as the articles in question are clearly embraced within the latter class, the decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

Certain plate glass was classified for duty under paragraph 116 of the tariff act of 1890. To this classification no objection is made. But it was also classified, under paragraph 118 of said act, as “cast polished plate glass silvered and beveled.” The importer protests against this classification, on the [150]*150ground that, while paragraph 116 in terms covers looking-glass plates, paragraph 118 does not refer to them. The evidence shows that the glasses in question are used for making looking glasses. It is not denied that they are “cast polished plate glass,” and there is no evidence that such glasses are commercially known as “looking glass .plates.” As congress has recognized “looking glass plates” as distinct from “cast polished plate glass silvered,” and as the articles in question are clearly embraced within the latter class, the decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F. 149, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrman-v-united-states-circtsdny-1894.