Phair v. United States

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

Phair v. United States

105 F. 508, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4878

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

DecidedMay 24, 1900

DocketNos. 2,923, 2,950, and 2,922

StatusPublished

This text of 105 F. 508 (Phair 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

Phair v. United States, 105 F. 508, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4878 (circtsdny 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The articles in question are chloral hydrate and salol, and were assessed for duty under paragraph 67 of the act of 1897 at 55 cents a pound, as “medicinal preparations, in the preparation of which alcohol is used, not specially provided for.” The importers claimed in their protests that they were dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 68 of said act, as “medicinal preparations, in the preparation of which alcohol is not used, not specially provided for.” In view of the decisions in U. S. v. Battle, 4 C. C. A. 249, 54 Fed. 141, Schering v. U. S. (No. 2,137), and Engelhorn v. Same (No. 1,237), I feel obliged to reverse the decision of the board of general appraisers.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The articles in question are chloral hydrate and salol, and were assessed for duty under paragraph 67 of the act of 1897 at 55 cents a pound, as “medicinal preparations, in the preparation of which alcohol is used, not specially provided for.” The importers claimed in their protests that they were dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 68 of said act, as “medicinal preparations, in the preparation of which alcohol is not used, not specially provided for.” In view of the decisions in U. S. v. Battle, 4 C. C. A. 249, 54 Fed. 141, Schering v. U. S. (No. 2,137), and Engelhorn v. Same (No. 1,237), I feel obliged to reverse the decision of the board of general appraisers.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 F. 508, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phair-v-united-states-circtsdny-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack