Protests 79455-K of Pope & Talbot, Inc.

U.S. Customs Court

Protests 79455-K of Pope & Talbot, Inc.

13 Cust. Ct. 257

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJuly 6, 1944

DocketNo. 49606

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Cust. Ct. 257 (Protests 79455-K of Pope & Talbot, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Protests 79455-K of Pope & Talbot, Inc., 13 Cust. Ct. 257 (cusc 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Walkee, J.

At the hearing plaintiff moved to incorporate the record in Abstract 43644. The court found, from a reading of the record, that a lack of creosoting of the piles there involved was an important factor and that therefore the two cases were not sufficiently similar. The motion was denied. It appears from the record that the merchandise here in issue was used as piling to form the supporting foundation for wharves, shipways, and other structures. It was conceded that 75 percent was used as foundation piling for wharves. Plaintiff’s only witness testified that the principal use is “as a foundation for some structure.” The court found plaintiff had failed to establish that the chief use was not for building wharves. On the record presented the protests were overruled. United States v. MacNaughton (5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 114, T. D. 34166) and Kimpland v. United States (G. A. 4685, T. D. 22122) cited.

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

Opinion by

Walkee, J.

At the hearing plaintiff moved to incorporate the record in Abstract 43644. The court found, from a reading of the record, that a lack of creosoting of the piles there involved was an important factor and that therefore the two cases were not sufficiently similar. The motion was denied. It appears from the record that the merchandise here in issue was used as piling to form the supporting foundation for wharves, shipways, and other structures. It was conceded that 75 percent was used as foundation piling for wharves. Plaintiff’s only witness testified that the principal use is “as a foundation for some structure.” The court found plaintiff had failed to establish that the chief use was not for building wharves. On the record presented the protests were overruled. United States v. MacNaughton (5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 114, T. D. 34166) and Kimpland v. United States (G. A. 4685, T. D. 22122) cited.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Cust. Ct. 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protests-79455-k-of-pope-talbot-inc-cusc-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack