Louis Metzger & Co. v. United States

141 F. 381, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4897
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 1, 1905·No. No. 3,704·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The merchandise in question differs from that considered and disposed of at this session of the court in Hirsch v. United States (C. C.) 141 Fed. 380, only in the fact [382] that while the articles there under consideration were adapted to be used, and evidently were used, as ornaments and for trimmings, the merchandise herein consists, so far as this appeal is concerned, of what are known as “spangled crowns,” which constitute crowns for hats. It is therefore argued that they are not ejusdem generis with “fabrics, laces, embroidery, wearing apparel, ornaments, trimmings,” etc., under said paragraph 408. Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673]. They are, however, in any evenf, “articles composed wholly or in part of * * * spangles * * * made of gelatin, not specially provided for.” These articles are in a general way of the same character as the class of materials considered under paragraph 408, and, as the designation is more specific than the general catch-all provision in paragraph 450 (30 Stat. 193 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678]) for manufactures of gelatin, the decision of the Board of General Appraisers should be affirmed.

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

Louis Metzger & Co. v. United States, 141 F. 381, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4897 (S.D.N.Y. 1905).

141 F. 381 (Louis Metzger & Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Max B. Heim Corp. v. United States
28 Cust. Ct. 62 (U.S. Customs Court, 1952)