Slazenger v. United States
This text of 91 F. 517 (Slazenger 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
91 F. 517, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slazenger-v-united-states-circtsdny-1899.