Steinhardt v. United States

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

Steinhardt v. United States

172 F. 168, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5679

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

DecidedMay 21, 1909

DocketNo. 5,065

StatusPublished

This text of 172 F. 168 (Steinhardt 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

Steinhardt v. United States, 172 F. 168, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5679 (circtsdny 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PLATT, District Judge (orally).

The articles in controversy are lithographic prints pasted on wood and decorated with oil paints, which the Board held to have been properly classified as manufactures in chief value of wood under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule D, par. 208, 30 Stat. 168 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1647) overruling the importers’ contention that they should have been classified as paintings under paragraph 454 of said act.

I do not think these are paintings within the meaning of paragraph 454. I do not agree with the Board that it is a question whether they are known commercially as paintings. In my opinion, the language employed in said paragraph — “paintings in oil or water colors,” etc.'— is descriptive. These articles have been produced largely by the lithographic process, and the subsequent application with the brush and paint to a slight extent and washing over with varnish is not sufficient to give to them the character of paintings.

Decision affirmed.

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

PLATT, District Judge (orally).

The articles in controversy are lithographic prints pasted on wood and decorated with oil paints, which the Board held to have been properly classified as manufactures in chief value of wood under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule D, par. 208, 30 Stat. 168 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1647) overruling the importers’ contention that they should have been classified as paintings under paragraph 454 of said act.

I do not think these are paintings within the meaning of paragraph 454. I do not agree with the Board that it is a question whether they are known commercially as paintings. In my opinion, the language employed in said paragraph — “paintings in oil or water colors,” etc.'— is descriptive. These articles have been produced largely by the lithographic process, and the subsequent application with the brush and paint to a slight extent and washing over with varnish is not sufficient to give to them the character of paintings.

Decision affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F. 168, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinhardt-v-united-states-circtsdny-1909.