Slazenger v. United States
91 F. 517, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided January 18, 1899·No. Nos. 2,642 and 2,730·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
These are tennis balls of India rubber ¡covered with light felt of wool. The India rubber is shown to have Tocen the component material of chief value, and they appear to have been dutiable under paragraph 352, Act 1894, as claimed by the importer. A description of goods of which India rubber is the component material of chief value seems to be more specific than one of goods of which India rubber is a component material generally, without regard to proportional value. Hartranft v. Meyer, 135 U. S. 237, 10 Sup. Ct. 751. Decision reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Slazenger v. United States, 91 F. 517, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902 (circtsdny 1899).
91 F. 517 (Slazenger v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Slazenger
113 F. 524 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1900)