United States v. Moses

Second Circuit

United States v. Moses

84 F. 329, 28 C.C.A. 425, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1897

DocketNo. 12

StatusPublished

This text of 84 F. 329 (United States v. Moses) 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. Moses, 84 F. 329, 28 C.C.A. 425, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191 (2d Cir. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

It is not disputed that, unless the merchandise be tissue paper, it is properly included in paragraph 422. There is no other paragraph specially providing for it. The sole question presented, therefore, is whether it is “tissue paper.” We do not find in the phraseology of paragraph 419 any reason for holding that the words “tissue paper,” as used therein, are not to he interpreted in accordance with the general rule; or that congress intended them to have any other or different meaning from that which they had in trade and commerce. The testimony before the board of general appraisers upon the question whether this importation was one variety of the “tissue paper” of commerce was very conflicting, and the additional evidence taken in the circuit court presents a like conflict. Under the circumstances we see no reason for reversing the decisions below. Decision of circuit court affirmed.

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

PEE CUEIAM.

It is not disputed that, unless the merchandise be tissue paper, it is properly included in paragraph 422. There is no other paragraph specially providing for it. The sole question presented, therefore, is whether it is “tissue paper.” We do not find in the phraseology of paragraph 419 any reason for holding that the words “tissue paper,” as used therein, are not to he interpreted in accordance with the general rule; or that congress intended them to have any other or different meaning from that which they had in trade and commerce. The testimony before the board of general appraisers upon the question whether this importation was one variety of the “tissue paper” of commerce was very conflicting, and the additional evidence taken in the circuit court presents a like conflict. Under the circumstances we see no reason for reversing the decisions below. Decision of circuit court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 F. 329, 28 C.C.A. 425, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-moses-ca2-1897.