I. W. Lyon & Son v. United States

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

I. W. Lyon & Son v. United States

121 F. 204, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5354

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1903

DocketNo. 3,253

StatusPublished

This text of 121 F. 204 (I. W. Lyon & Son 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

I. W. Lyon & Son v. United States, 121 F. 204, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5354 (circtsdny 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

This article is precipitated chalk, dried and bolted, and imported and used for making a tooth powder. It was assessed at I cent per pound under paragraph 13 of the act of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1627]), as “chalk (not medicine nor prepared for toilet purposes) when ground, precipitated naturally or artificially, or otherwise, prepared,” apparently because it is not a complete toilet article, but only “intended to-be used in the preparation of a toilet article.” But the exception is not of toilet articles, but of chalk prepared for toilet purposes, and the use intended is a toilet purpose. It seems to be a manufacture of chalk not otherwise provided for, under another clause of that paragraph, and dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem-.

Decision reversed.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

This article is precipitated chalk, dried and bolted, and imported and used for making a tooth powder. It was assessed at I cent per pound under paragraph 13 of the act of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1627]), as “chalk (not medicine nor prepared for toilet purposes) when ground, precipitated naturally or artificially, or otherwise, prepared,” apparently because it is not a complete toilet article, but only “intended to-be used in the preparation of a toilet article.” But the exception is not of toilet articles, but of chalk prepared for toilet purposes, and the use intended is a toilet purpose. It seems to be a manufacture of chalk not otherwise provided for, under another clause of that paragraph, and dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem-.

Decision reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 F. 204, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-w-lyon-son-v-united-states-circtsdny-1903.