R. Brauss & Co. v. United States

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

R. Brauss & Co. v. United States

120 F. 1017, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5321

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1903

DocketNo. 3,292

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 F. 1017 (R. Brauss & 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

R. Brauss & Co. v. United States, 120 F. 1017, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5321 (circtsdny 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

These are bundles of split bamboo, about 12 inches long, intended for use in making brooms, and have been assessed for duty as “manufactures of wood,” under paragraph 208 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11 (30 Stat. 168 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1647]), as against bamboo, in the phrase “bamboo, rattan, reeds unmanufactured,” in paragraph 700 (30 Stat. 202 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1689]), as part of the free list. If “unmanufactured” does not reach back and include bamboo, these bundles are clearly in the free list, for they contain nothing but bamboo. If it does, it is still on the free list, unless they are bundles of manufactured bamboo. Splitting the bamboo and cutting it into lengths do not make it into anything. U. S. v. Dudley, 174 U. S. 670, 19 Sup. Ct. 801, 43 L. Ed. 1129. And putting it up in bundles does not change its character. Frazee v. Moffitt (C. C.) 20 Blatchf. 267, 18 Fed. 584.

Decision reversed.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

These are bundles of split bamboo, about 12 inches long, intended for use in making brooms, and have been assessed for duty as “manufactures of wood,” under paragraph 208 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11 (30 Stat. 168 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1647]), as against bamboo, in the phrase “bamboo, rattan, reeds unmanufactured,” in paragraph 700 (30 Stat. 202 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1689]), as part of the free list. If “unmanufactured” does not reach back and include bamboo, these bundles are clearly in the free list, for they contain nothing but bamboo. If it does, it is still on the free list, unless they are bundles of manufactured bamboo. Splitting the bamboo and cutting it into lengths do not make it into anything. U. S. v. Dudley, 174 U. S. 670, 19 Sup. Ct. 801, 43 L. Ed. 1129. And putting it up in bundles does not change its character. Frazee v. Moffitt (C. C.) 20 Blatchf. 267, 18 Fed. 584.

Decision reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 F. 1017, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-brauss-co-v-united-states-circtsdny-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack