Lichtenstein Millinery Co. v. United States

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

Lichtenstein Millinery Co. v. United States

154 F. 736, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5194

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1907

DocketNo. 4,085

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 F. 736 (Lichtenstein Millinery Co. 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

Lichtenstein Millinery Co. v. United States, 154 F. 736, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5194 (circtsdny 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

HAZEL, District Judge.

The merchandise, consisting of a three-panel folding screen, 5 feet 10 inches high, the frame being of wood, carved and gilded, and being about 6 inches wide, the panels being of silk, embroidered and having inset a printed picture covered by a glass frame, was assessed for duty as a silk-embroidered article at the rate of 60 per cent, ad valorem under the provisions of the existing tariff act (Act July 81, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule L, par. 390, 30 Stat. 187 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1670]). The importer claims the screen should be held dutiable at 35 per cent, under Schedule D, par. 208, 30 Stat. 168 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 164], as an article composed in chief value of wood.

The silk embroidery upon the panels of the screen unquestionably enhances its value to an appreciable extent; and accordingly the assessment would seem to have been proper by virtue of tbe proviso contained in paragraph 339, even though wood was the component material of chief value. Tbe importer contends that paragraph 390 refers only to such articles as are embraced ejusdem generis with laces, lace edgings, insertings, galloons, chiffon, or other flouncings and trimmings, and that the screen is not in any way ejusdem generis with the articles mentioned. I am satisfied that the doctrine of “nosci-tur a sociis” does not apply, and that the case is controlled by the principle enunciated in U. S. v. Altman, 107 Fed. 15, 46 C. C. A. 116, and Carter, Webster & Co. v. U. S. (C. C.) 137 Fed. 978.¹ Such appears also to have been the opinion of the Board.

The decision is affirmed.

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

HAZEL, District Judge.

The merchandise, consisting of a three-panel folding screen, 5 feet 10 inches high, the frame being of wood, carved and gilded, and being about 6 inches wide, the panels being of silk, embroidered and having inset a printed picture covered by a glass frame, was assessed for duty as a silk-embroidered article at the rate of 60 per cent, ad valorem under the provisions of the existing tariff act (Act July 81, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule L, par. 390, 30 Stat. 187 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1670]). The importer claims the screen should be held dutiable at 35 per cent, under Schedule D, par. 208, 30 Stat. 168 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 164], as an article composed in chief value of wood.

The silk embroidery upon the panels of the screen unquestionably enhances its value to an appreciable extent; and accordingly the assessment would seem to have been proper by virtue of tbe proviso contained in paragraph 339, even though wood was the component material of chief value. Tbe importer contends that paragraph 390 refers only to such articles as are embraced ejusdem generis with laces, lace edgings, insertings, galloons, chiffon, or other flouncings and trimmings, and that the screen is not in any way ejusdem generis with the articles mentioned. I am satisfied that the doctrine of “nosci-tur a sociis” does not apply, and that the case is controlled by the principle enunciated in U. S. v. Altman, 107 Fed. 15, 46 C. C. A. 116, and Carter, Webster & Co. v. U. S. (C. C.) 137 Fed. 978.¹ Such appears also to have been the opinion of the Board.

The decision is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 F. 736, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lichtenstein-millinery-co-v-united-states-circtsdny-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack