In re Bing

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

In re Bing

66 F. 727, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3173

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

DecidedApril 26, 1894

DocketNo. 959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 F. 727 (In re Bing) 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

In re Bing, 66 F. 727, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3173 (circtsdny 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge

(orally). The question here is not of law, but of fact. It is whether or not Exhibit A is “spun silk,” under paragraph 410 of the act of October 1, 1890. Even if it were also a question as to what the trade name of Exhibit A was at the time of the passage of the last tariff act, it seems to me that the Van Blankensteyn decision (5 C. C. A. 579, 56 Fed. 474.), controls both propositions. The board came to their conclusion on the facts presented to them, and I cannot say it is so against the weight, of evidence that the court should set it aside. If this case were an appeal from the decision of a referee the court, although it might have reached a different conclusion had the case been tided originally before it, would not, under familiar rules, disturb the report. The question is whether the finding of the board should be set aside as practically against the weight: of evidence. I think the board had sufficient evidence to warrant their finding and their decision is, therefore, affirmed.

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

COXE, District Judge

(orally). The question here is not of law, but of fact. It is whether or not Exhibit A is “spun silk,” under paragraph 410 of the act of October 1, 1890. Even if it were also a question as to what the trade name of Exhibit A was at the time of the passage of the last tariff act, it seems to me that the Van Blankensteyn decision (5 C. C. A. 579, 56 Fed. 474.), controls both propositions. The board came to their conclusion on the facts presented to them, and I cannot say it is so against the weight, of evidence that the court should set it aside. If this case were an appeal from the decision of a referee the court, although it might have reached a different conclusion had the case been tided originally before it, would not, under familiar rules, disturb the report. The question is whether the finding of the board should be set aside as practically against the weight: of evidence. I think the board had sufficient evidence to warrant their finding and their decision is, therefore, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 F. 727, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bing-circtsdny-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack