United States v. American Express Co.

Second Circuit

United States v. American Express Co.

136 F. 594, 69 C.C.A. 368, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4502

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 136 F. 594 (United States v. American Express Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. American Express Co., 136 F. 594, 69 C.C.A. 368, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4502 (2d Cir. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinions of the board and of the Circuit Court upon the questions therein discussed. r

The argument is now advanced, apparently for the first time, that the merchandise in question should have been assessed for duty under paragraph 456 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678], which relates to “pencils of paper or wood, filled with lead or other material, and pencils of lead,” etc. In our judgment, this contention is not well founded. Though called “soap pencils,” the imported articles are intended for cleaning spectacle and eyeglass lenses, and do not belong to the class of writing or marking pencils manifestly referred to in paragraph 456.

The decision is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinions of the board and of the Circuit Court upon the questions therein discussed. r

The argument is now advanced, apparently for the first time, that the merchandise in question should have been assessed for duty under paragraph 456 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678], which relates to “pencils of paper or wood, filled with lead or other material, and pencils of lead,” etc. In our judgment, this contention is not well founded. Though called “soap pencils,” the imported articles are intended for cleaning spectacle and eyeglass lenses, and do not belong to the class of writing or marking pencils manifestly referred to in paragraph 456.

The decision is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 F. 594, 69 C.C.A. 368, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-american-express-co-ca2-1905.