Irwin v. United States

Second Circuit

Irwin v. United States

67 F. 232, 14 C.C.A. 381, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2740

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1895

DocketNo. 90

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 F. 232 (Irwin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Irwin v. United States, 67 F. 232, 14 C.C.A. 381, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2740 (2d Cir. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from the circuit court involves the question whether the fine powder known as “hydrate of alumina,” and manufactured from the crude mineral known as “bauxite,” should be classified for tariff purposes, under the free list of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, as bauxite, or as alumina, under paragraph 9 of tlie same act, and dutiable at six-tenths of one cent per .pound. The opinion of Judge Coxe (62 Fed. 150) states clearly and at length the various reasons which induced him to affirm the decision of the collector, and to hold that the article was not bauxite, but was dutiable under the name of “alumina.” In those reasons we fully concur. While the article, technically speaking, is hydrate of alumina, it sufficiently appears from the testimony taken for use before the circuit court that in common speech the terms “hydrate of alumina” and “alumina” are used as synonymous.

The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from the circuit court involves the question whether the fine powder known as “hydrate of alumina,” and manufactured from the crude mineral known as “bauxite,” should be classified for tariff purposes, under the free list of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, as bauxite, or as alumina, under paragraph 9 of tlie same act, and dutiable at six-tenths of one cent per .pound. The opinion of Judge Coxe (62 Fed. 150) states clearly and at length the various reasons which induced him to affirm the decision of the collector, and to hold that the article was not bauxite, but was dutiable under the name of “alumina.” In those reasons we fully concur. While the article, technically speaking, is hydrate of alumina, it sufficiently appears from the testimony taken for use before the circuit court that in common speech the terms “hydrate of alumina” and “alumina” are used as synonymous.

The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F. 232, 14 C.C.A. 381, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irwin-v-united-states-ca2-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack