Keppelmann v. United States

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

Keppelmann v. United States

116 F. 777, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5037

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

DecidedMay 31, 1902

DocketNo. 3,158

StatusPublished

This text of 116 F. 777 (Keppelmann 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

Keppelmann v. United States, 116 F. 777, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5037 (circtsdny 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge

(orally). This article is concededly a lake, and it seems equally plain upon the proofs that it is also an alizarine color. The government chemist testified that it is a characteristic alizarine color, and that a group or list of alizarine colors [779]*779would be incomplete ii alizarine lake's were omitted from them. It would therefore seem to be more appropriately included in the enumeration of paragraph 368, which is not qualified with the words “not specially provided for in this 'act,” as is the paragraph 18, which enumerates generally paints, colors, pigments, lakes, etc.

The decision of the board is reversed.

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

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge

(orally). This article is concededly a lake, and it seems equally plain upon the proofs that it is also an alizarine color. The government chemist testified that it is a characteristic alizarine color, and that a group or list of alizarine colors [779]*779would be incomplete ii alizarine lake's were omitted from them. It would therefore seem to be more appropriately included in the enumeration of paragraph 368, which is not qualified with the words “not specially provided for in this 'act,” as is the paragraph 18, which enumerates generally paints, colors, pigments, lakes, etc.

The decision of the board is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 F. 777, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keppelmann-v-united-states-circtsdny-1902.