In re Mills

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

In re Mills

49 F. 726, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1659

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 F. 726 (In re Mills) 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 Mills, 49 F. 726, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1659 (circtsdny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Lacombe, Circuit Judge,

These articles seem fairly within the dictionary meaning of the word “fabric,” and I do not find sufficient in the testimony of the trade witnesses to show a specific trade meaning for the term “India-rubber fabrics,” such as would take these out of such ordinary meaning., The word “fabric ” is rather a broad one in common speech. It is certainly as broad, if not broader, than the word “cloth.” I loci constrained by the decision in the supreme court in Hartranft v. Meyer, 135 U. S. 237, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 751, to reverse the decision of . the board of general appraisers in this case, in view of the fact that the court in that case had before them a cloth which was composed in part of wool, and still found that it was dutiable under the provision of Schedule L, for the reason that silk was the component material of chief value. It appears that silk is the component of chief value in this case, and I understand that I am hut following the rule of the supreme court in holding that the silk clause should control here as against the term “India-rubber fabrics,” just as in the other case it controlled the classification of a “cloth” which was “composed in part of wool.” The decision of the board of appraisers is reversed, and the articles should be classified under paragraph 383. This decision applies to the articles covered by the collector’s appeal.

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

Lacombe, Circuit Judge,

These articles seem fairly within the dictionary meaning of the word “fabric,” and I do not find sufficient in the testimony of the trade witnesses to show a specific trade meaning for the term “India-rubber fabrics,” such as would take these out of such ordinary meaning., The word “fabric ” is rather a broad one in common speech. It is certainly as broad, if not broader, than the word “cloth.” I loci constrained by the decision in the supreme court in Hartranft v. Meyer, 135 U. S. 237, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 751, to reverse the decision of . the board of general appraisers in this case, in view of the fact that the court in that case had before them a cloth which was composed in part of wool, and still found that it was dutiable under the provision of Schedule L, for the reason that silk was the component material of chief value. It appears that silk is the component of chief value in this case, and I understand that I am hut following the rule of the supreme court in holding that the silk clause should control here as against the term “India-rubber fabrics,” just as in the other case it controlled the classification of a “cloth” which was “composed in part of wool.” The decision of the board of appraisers is reversed, and the articles should be classified under paragraph 383. This decision applies to the articles covered by the collector’s appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 F. 726, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mills-circtsdny-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack