Simpson-Crawford Co. v. United States

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

Simpson-Crawford Co. v. United States

172 F. 301, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703

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

DecidedMay 22, 1909

DocketNo. 5,115

StatusPublished

This text of 172 F. 301 (Simpson-Crawford 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

Simpson-Crawford Co. v. United States, 172 F. 301, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703 (circtsdny 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PLATT, District Judge.

The Board has found as a fact that the articles in question are completed belts and that metal is the component material of chief value. It is only as a belt that they can be considered as wearing apparel. So that to be wearing apparel at all the buckle is an essential part of the entitjr. The Board seems to think that the buckles are as immaterial and incidental to the belt as the screws on a door are to the door. But, on the contrary, the belt is not a belt without the buckle. Take away the buckle, and you have only a piece of belting, which is provided for eo nomine in paragraph 389. The reasoning of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Horrax v. United States (C. C. A.) 167 Fed. 526, T. D. 29,505, and Rheims Company v. United States, 160 Fed. 925, 88 C. C. A. 107, T. D. 28,783, seems to be absolutely decisive of the issue in the case at bar.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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

PLATT, District Judge.

The Board has found as a fact that the articles in question are completed belts and that metal is the component material of chief value. It is only as a belt that they can be considered as wearing apparel. So that to be wearing apparel at all the buckle is an essential part of the entitjr. The Board seems to think that the buckles are as immaterial and incidental to the belt as the screws on a door are to the door. But, on the contrary, the belt is not a belt without the buckle. Take away the buckle, and you have only a piece of belting, which is provided for eo nomine in paragraph 389. The reasoning of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Horrax v. United States (C. C. A.) 167 Fed. 526, T. D. 29,505, and Rheims Company v. United States, 160 Fed. 925, 88 C. C. A. 107, T. D. 28,783, seems to be absolutely decisive of the issue in the case at bar.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F. 301, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-crawford-co-v-united-states-circtsdny-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack